SMT. SANGEETA VIDHUDI AND 2 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
NA529/797/2025 · 2025-04-10
Nalin Kumar Srivastava
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 30954 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 30954 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53660 Court No. - 80 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 797 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Sangeeta Vidhudi And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ramesh Pundir,Rekha Pundir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. This application under Section 529 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to direct the court concerned to decide the Case No. 398 of 2019 under Section 125 CrPC, Police Sttaion- Site-5, District- Gautam Buddh Nagar pending in the Court of learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar expeditiously within stipulated period. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicant no.1 is the aggrieved wife and applicant nos.2 and 3 are her minor children. The marriage of applicant no.1 and opposite party no.2 has been solemnized on 16.4.2024 and present case is pending since 2019. 4. It is further submitted that the compliance of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Rajnesh Vs. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 has been complied with and an interim maintenance order has also been passed in favour of the applicants, however, the case is now pending at the stage of evidence. It is further submitted that in the instant matter a compromise had taken place between the parties in the mediation centre and some directions were made by the mediation centre vide order dated 6.12.2019. It is further submitted that opposite party no.2 did not comply with the direction given by the mediation centre and since 2020 the direction given by the mediation centre was flouted away and both the parties and they are living separately. It is also submitted that the opposite party no.2 is not cooperating with the Court concerned and is adopting delaying tactics in disposal of the said. 5. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. 6. It reveals from the perusal of the order sheets that the aforesaid case is pending since 2019 at the stage of evidence of opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 is not cooperating with the progress of the case.
This Court is also aware of the fact that the Family Courts in the State of U.P. are overburdened with the cases and are, as such gasping for breath. 7. In the circumstances, the Court concerned is directed to decide the aforesaid case in accordance with law preferably within nine months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before it, if there is no legal impediment. It is further directed that no unnecessary adjournment will be sought/granted. 8. It is also made clear that the Court / Presiding Officer is not the only stake holder of the trial and disposal of a case, hence, besides the P.O. concerned, all the stake holders i.e. police and execution authorities, advocates, parties to the case, staff etc. are also made bound by this order and it will be their responsibility also to assist the Court in every manner for the expeditious disposal of this case. 9. With the above observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 11.4.2025 Fhd Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad