HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 208 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. (C. M. Application No.1 of 2025-Application for condonation of delay) The instant appeal has been filed with a delay of 73 days as reported by the Office. We have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay and find that the reasons stated therein are sufficient to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the application is allowed. Order on Appeal This appeal has been filed under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the order dated 25.07.2025 passed in Old Case No. M- 162/2019 and New Case No. M-2965/2025 "Surendra Kumar Yadav vs. Smt. Raj Kiran" under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The impugned order was passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, 1st Family Court, Unnao, directing the appellant to pay Rs. 4,000/- as one-time lump sum litigation expenses within a week and Rs. 500/- to the respondent on each date when she appeared before the Court. It is the case of the appellant that he had filed an application under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was performed on the basis of fraud played by the respondent, as she was already married to another person. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ishuk Ali Yusuf Counsel for Respondent(s) : Surendra Kumar Yadav .....Appellant(s) Smt. Raj Kiran .....Respondent(s) In the said case under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed way back in the year 2019, the respondent moved an application under Section 24 of the Act. On 15.10.2024, both parties appeared before the Family Court, Unnao and the Court directed them to file declaratory affidavits of assets and liabilities, fixing 27.11.2024 as the next date for hearing. The appellant filed his declaratory affidavit of assets and liabilities on 15.02.2025. However, the respondent did not file any such affidavit before the Court. Nevertheless, the Family Court continued to hear the matter, prompting the appellant to file a Transfer Application (Civil) before this Court, registered as Transfer Application No. 88 of 2025, on 17.04.2025. Even before any order could be passed on the transfer application, the Family Court decided the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act ignoring the affidavit filed by the appellant regarding the respondent's assets. The appellant stated that the respondent owns two shops; one run by herself in the name of Shringar Cosmetics and Gift Centre at Mahesh Khera Mor, Sisendi, Lucknow and another shop which she has rented out. She is a trained beautician and along with her friend, runs another shop under the name Saheli Reema Shringar Cosmetics and Gift Centre. Despite the said affidavit being on record, and no affidavit having been filed by the respondent, the trial court allowed the respondent's application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and passed the impugned order. It has been submitted that the appellant is already paying Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent pursuant to an order passed on her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The appellant is a salaried person, whereas the respondent is a businesswoman having two shops as stated above. Having gone through the impugned order, we find that the trial court considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant as well as the objections raised by learned counsel for the respondent. It also took note of the fact that the case pertains to the year 2019, has been identified as one of the 100 oldest cases pending in the Family Court and has been included in the action plan of the High Court for expeditious disposal. We have perused the affidavit filed by the appellant, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. The affidavit does not disclose on what basis the appellant is currently working in the Army in Jammu and Kashmir, as was stated before the trial court. FAPLD No. 208 of 2025 2 We find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order. Since we are disposing of this appeal and noting that it is one of the 100 old cases identified in the Family Court at Unnao, we hope and expect that the trial court shall, as expeditiously as possible, dispose of the main case without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party. November 12, 2025 Mahesh FAPLD No. 208 of 2025 3 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- MAHESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench