HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6423 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Shri Prashant Agarwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an orders dated 08.10.2025 and 13.10.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.4, Lucknow in Suit No.1456 of 2012 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 3. By means of the impugned order dated 08.10.2025, the petitioner's application (paper No.C-81) under Order 4 A CPC for consolidation of Suit No.1496 of 2012 (New No.214 of 2017) filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been rejected on the ground that the suit for divorce filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act is pending since the year 2012 and it is at the stage of defendant evidence. The Suit No.2953 of 2025 filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is at the initial stage. The petitioner did not file the suit under Section of the Hindu Marriage Act promptly after filing of the suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the year 2012. The suit for divorce is one of the oldest matters and the Hon'ble High Court had issued a direction for final disposal of the suit within a period of four months. 4. The petitioner has not pleaded the facts regarding filing of earlier petition by herself in this Court in which this Court has issued a direction for disposal of the divorce suit within a period of four months. The petitioner while approaching this Court for invoking the powers of Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Prashant Agarwal, Anurag Maurya Counsel for Respondent(s) : Smt. Arti Kashyap .....Petitioner(s) Shiva @ Shiv Nandan Kashyap .....Respondent(s) superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, a litigant is expected to approach the Court with clean hands by disclosing all the relevant facts and concealment of fact regarding filing of an earlier petition and issuance of a direction for disposal of the suit within a period of four months, shows that the petitioner is guilty of concealing material fact which dis-entitles her to be granted any discretion by this Court in exercise of its powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Even on merits, the trial Court has given a sound reason for declining the request for consolidation of the suits that the petitioner is contesting the suit for divorce since the year 2012 and she has not filed the suit for restitution of conjugal rights at any earlier point of time and she has filed this suit only when the suit for divorce has reached the final stage. 6. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that there is no error or illegality in the impugned order dated 08.10.2025 passed by the Family court. 7. The order dated 13.10.2025 has been passed on the petitioner's application (paper No.C-84) under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for framing the following additional issues:- (i) Whether the defendant has suffered mental cruelty because of baseless allegation of adultery levelled by the plaintiff ? If yes, its effects. (ii) Whether the defendant acquires a sufficient right to live separate from the plaintiff because of the allegation of adultery levelled by the plaintiff? If yes, its effects. (ii) Whether Shalu @ Urvashi Kashtyap is a daughter born out of the wedlock between the plaintiff and the defendant ? If yes, its effects. 8. The defendant has not filed any counter claim in the suit and, therefore, the issue of any mental cruelty caused to the defendant is not of any significance in the suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the plaintiff. The allegation of adultery was levelled in the plaint filed in the year 2012 and yet the defendant did not find any cause to move an application for framing any issue till the suit has reached the stage of final hearing. 9. The Family Court rejected the application for framing of additional issues on the ground that the defendant has not raised any counter claim. A227 No. 6423 of 2025 2 She had earlier filed suit for framing of additional issues which has already been rejected by means of an order dated 08.08.2022, which has attained finality. 10. In these circumstances, there is no good ground to accept the defendant's application for framing additional issues in a suit which is amongst the oldest cases pending in the Court. 11. Assuming certain necessary issues having been framed in the suit, since the defendant has not claimed any counter claim, she will not suffer because of non-payment of the issues and the only person who can suffer from the non-payment of issues is plaintiff himself. 12. In view of the above, I am of the view that there is no error or illegality in the impugned order dated 13.10.2025 as well. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered view that the petition lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. November 4, 2025 -Amit K- A227 No. 6423 of 2025 3 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench