Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 46530 of 2019 Applicant :- Shruti Shukla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Joshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Sri Abhishek Tripathi, Advocate has filed vakalatnama and the same is taken on record.
Heard Sri Manish Joshi, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Abhishek Tripathi, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
The present application has been filed with a prayer to direct the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad to decide the Misc. Case No. 645 of 2017, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad expeditiously.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant in this case is wife of the opposite party no. 2. An application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is pending before the court since 2017. Till date applicant has not been given any maintenance amount and the opposite party no. 2 is lingering on the proceedings in this case, hence a direction may be issued to the trial court to decide this case expeditiously.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has opposed the prayer of such direction being issued and has relied upon Km. Shobha Bose Vs. Judge Small Causes and others, 2010 (1) ADJ 531 (DB). Paragraph no. 3 of the said judgment is as follows:-
"The prayer made in this petition for expeditious disposal of the suit/revision, in sum and substance, is nothing but a prayer for out of turn hearing of the suit. We are unaware of the docket of the Judge, Small Causes Court in seisin of the matter. We also do not know that suits of earlier years in which old ladies figure, are pending or not. However, it is common knowledge that thousands of cases instituted earlier by persons more aged than the petitioner are unfortunately pending in the Court. It is systemic delay. It is further common knowledge that direction of the nature, if granted, affects the working of the Court and the Judges, in seisin of such cases, remain ordinarily occupied with only those cases in which directions have been given for expeditious disposal and cases filed earlier gets ignored as those litigating from earlier years have no resources to approach this Court seeking expeditious disposal of the matter. It is further common knowledge that many of the Judges, because of sheer number of such directions, are unable to carry out these directions and subjected to contempt proceedings and even personally directed to appear in such proceedings."
Relying upon the said judgment, it is argued that in the present case no such direction should be issued because this court does not have any figure available with it as to what is pendency before the trial court and in how many cases the trial court has been directed to decide cases expeditiously.
It is further argued by him that the matter should be referred to the mediation center so that family does not break, to which learned counsel for the applicant has stated that already matter was referred to the mediation center before the lower court, which has failed, which is evident from the order sheet, which he has annexed.
I have gone through the above judgment and find that the said judgment relates to proceedings in a civil suit while in the present case matter relates to the maintenance to a lady/applicant and matter is pending since 2017 and it has to be seen with compassion in case of lady, who in case is not able to support herself financially, her life would not shatter only because of financial crunch, hence in such a situation I deem it proper that a direction needs to be issued to the trial court to decide this application within a period of six months.
With the above direction, application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019 A.P. Pandey