Court No. - 18
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5923 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Sanjula Yadav Respondent :- Principal Judge Family Court Allahabad And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Jiya Lal Patel
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Petitioner is before this Court assailing the validity of order dated 27.07.2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad, whereby, the Court has asked to the petitioner to give correct address of the second respondent.
It appears that the petitioner had instituted the matrimonial case under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, which was registered as Case no.1707/2016 against the second respondent Rakesh Kumar Yadav on 24.12.2016. The summons were sent to the second respondent through Court but he did not appeared before the Court concerned and finally the notice was published in newspaper on 12.10.2017 to the effect that respondent may appear personally or through his counsel on the date fixed i.e. 08.01.2015). On 08.01.2018, the Court was apprised regarding publication and, therefore, the next date was fixed for 17.02.2018 and again on 27.07.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached to this Court by filing Writ Petition (under Article 227) no.2501/2018 and this Court vide order dated 17.04.2018 had observed that the proceedings are liable to be completed within a period of six months.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in this backdrop, submits that the matter was listed on 27.07.2018 and on the said date, the order passed by this Court dated 17.04.2018 in the aforementioned writ petition has been apprised to the Court and learned Principal Judge, Family Court was fully conscious and aware that previously the publication has already been ensured but ignoring the same, the Principal Judge, Family Court has again asked the petitioner to submit the address of defendant-respondent, whereas, in such a situation the Trial Court ought to have proceeded ex-parte and try to finalize the proceedings at the earliest, as such, the petitioner is before this Court with the aforesaid prayer.
The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner appears to have force as the publication has already been done in the matter but the defendant-respondent has not turned up and it is the consistent case of petitioner that she has no knowledge of whereabouts of the petitioner and in such a situation, the proceedings are liable to be expedited and as such, this Court proceeds to ask the Court concerned to decide the aforesaid matrimonial case in terms of mandate of this Court dated 17.04.2018 in Writ Petition (under Article 227) no.2501/2018.
With these observations, Writ Petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018 A. Pandey