2025:HHC:38819 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 886 of 2025 Reserved on: 23.9.2025 Date of Decision: 18.11.2025. Neha Rani ...Petitioner Versus Sahil Jaswal ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr Atharv Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : None. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has 昀椀led the present petition for issuing a direction to the learned Additional Principal Judge-I, Family Court, Circuit Court, Camp at Amb, District Una, H.P., (learned Trial Court) to expedite the hearing of the case. It has been asserted that the petitioner had 昀椀led a petition for the grant of maintenance allowance in July 2021. The respondent 昀椀led a reply. He furnished a list of about 12-15 witnesses, out of whom only two witnesses have been examined. Interim maintenance 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:38819 was granted to the petitioner, but the same is not being paid. Learned counsel requested the learned Trial Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously; however, the learned Trial Court failed to do so. Hence, the petition. 2. Mr Atharv Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Trial Court is not disposing of the matter expeditiously. The petitioner has sought the maintenance, and the petition should have been disposed of expeditiously. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and a direction be issued to the learned Trial Court to decide the matter expeditiously. He relied upon the judgments of Deepti Sharma v. State of U.P. and another, 2024:INSC:991, Anjali Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another 2025:AHC:115646, Vinod Uniyal Vs. State of Uttarakhand, another, 2025:UHC:3406, Raj Kumar Vs. Manju Bala and another, Cr.MP(M) No. 656 of 2021, decided on 2.6.2022 and Jyoti Prabhat Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2025:AHC:55016 in support of his submission. 3. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 3 2025:HHC:38819 4. It was laid down in M. Gopalakrishnan v. Pasumpon Muthuramalingam, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1968, that any order of expediting the hearing might upset the calendar and schedule of the subordinate Court, and might result in assigning an unwarranted priority to that particular case over and above other cases pending in that Court. It was observed: - “4. Looking to the nature of the order passed by the High Court, we are not inclined to grant leave to appeal in this matter but feel impelled to observe that ordinarily, before passing any such order for expeditious proceedings in a particular case (which might appear to be rather of innocuous nature), it would be appropriate for the higher Court to appreciate that any such order for one case, without cogent and extremely compelling reasons, might upset the calendar and schedule of the subordinate Court; might result in assigning an unwarranted priority to that particular case over and above other cases pending in that Court; and progression of such other cases might su昀昀er for no reason and none of the faults of the litigants involved therein.” 5. This position was reiterated in Shaikh Uzma Feroz Hussain vs. State of Maharashtra Writ Petition Criminal no. 587 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023 (SC), wherein it was observed: “We are of the view that since every High Court and every Court in the country has a huge pendency, the Constitutional Court should avoid the temptation of 昀椀xing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of any case before any Court unless the situation is extraordinary.” 4 2025:HHC:38819 6. A similar view was taken in Allahabad High Court Bar Assn. v. State of U.P., (2024) 6 SCC 267: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 207 wherein it was observed: “41. Therefore, constitutional Courts should not normally 昀椀x a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending in any Court. The pattern of pendency of various categories of cases pending in every Court, including High Courts, is di昀昀erent. The situation at the grassroots level is better known to the judges of the concerned Courts. Therefore, the issue of giving out-of-turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the concerned Courts. The orders 昀椀xing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations. 42. There is another important reason for adopting the said approach. Not every litigant can easily a昀昀ord to 昀椀le proceedings in the Constitutional Courts. Those litigants who can a昀昀ord to approach the constitutional Courts cannot be allowed to take undue advantage by getting an order directing out-of-turn disposal of their cases while all other litigants patiently wait in the queue for their turn to come. The Courts, superior in the judicial hierarchy, cannot interfere with the day-to-day functioning of the other Courts by directing that only certain cases should be decided out of turn within a time frame. In a sense, no Court of law is inferior to the other. This Court is not superior to the High Courts in the judicial hierarchy. Therefore, the Judges of the High Courts should be allowed to set their priorities on a rational basis. Thus, as far as setting the outer limit is concerned, it should be best left to the concerned Courts unless there are very extraordinary circumstances.” 7. In the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts expressed anguish at the 5 2025:HHC:38819 slow pace of the maintenance proceedings. There can be no dispute that the proceedings for awarding maintenance have to be disposed of expeditiously, but it is a matter to be seen by the learned Trial Court where the matter is pending and not by this Court, which is not aware of the pendency and calendar of the learned Trial Courts in the State. 8. The photocopies of the order sheets show that the matter was listed for recording the statements of witnesses on 15.11.2022, when an a昀케davit of the respondent was 昀椀led, and the petitioner sought adjournment for his cross-examination. The a昀케davits of Avtar Singh, Satyaveer and Dastar Khan were 昀椀led on 13.12.2023, and the petitioner sought time for their cross- examination. The fact that the petitioner sought adjournments for the cross-examination of the witnesses shows that she was not interested in the expeditious disposal of the matter; otherwise, she would have cross-examined the witnesses on that day or on the next day. Hence, her grievance that the delay is being caused by the Court or the respondent is not supported by the copies of the order sheets. 6 2025:HHC:38819 9. It is undisputed that the Court had awarded maintenance to the applicant. It was asserted that the respondent is not providing maintenance to the petitioner. If it is so, the remedy of the petitioner is to seek the execution and not a direction for the expeditious disposal of her petition. 10. In view of the above, a direction cannot be issued to the learned Trial Court to expedite the hearing; however, it is hoped that the learned Trial Court will make the e昀昀orts to expeditiously dispose of the matter, subject to the co-operation of the petitioner. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court for information. 11. The present petition stands disposed of, and so are the pending applications, if any. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 18th November, 2025 (Chander)