2026:HHC:29332 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 632 of 2026 Reserved on: 13.07.2026 Date of Decision: 17.07.2026. Anuradha Negta ...Appellant Versus Bhupender Negta ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant : Ms Drishti Sirswal, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for issuing a direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.5, Shimla (learned Trial Court) to decide the application in a time-bound manner. 2. It has been asserted that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court no. 4, Shimla, had awarded maintenance to the petitioner vide order dated 17.02.2022. The respondent filed an appeal, which was allowed, but it was 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:29332 directed that the final order passed by the Court shall operate as an interim order from the date of application till the disposal of the main application on merits. The respondent was liable to pay ₹25,000/- to the petitioner till the final disposal of the case. The respondent failed to pay the amount. Hence, the petitioner filed an execution petition before the learned Trial Court. A warrant of attachment was issued to the Collector, which was returned with a report that the property had already been attached. The respondent failed to pay the arrears of maintenance, and the petitioner filed an application for the detention of the respondent. The learned Trial Court adjourned the matter without taking any action on the petitioner's application. Hence, the present petition. 3. Ms Drishti Sirswal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is unable to maintain herself and is dependent upon the maintenance awarded by the Court. The respondent has not paid any maintenance, and the Court is not taking any coercive steps to compel the respondent to pay maintenance to the petitioner. Therefore, she prayed that the present petition be allowed and the direction be issued to the learned Trial Court to decide the application expeditiously. She 3 2026:HHC:29332 relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha, AIR 2021 SC 569, in support of her submission. 4. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the record carefully. 5. 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 suffer for no reason and none of the faults of the litigants involved therein.” 4 2026:HHC:29332 6. 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 fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of any case before any Court unless the situation is extraordinary.” 7. A similar view was taken in the 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 fix 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 different. 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 fixing 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 afford to file proceedings in the Constitutional Courts. Those litigants who can afford 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 5 2026:HHC:29332 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.” 8. Therefore, it is impermissible to issue a direction for expediting the Trial. 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Rajnesh (supra) that the applications for maintenance should be disposed of expeditiously. The learned Trial Court is bound by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but no direction can be given because of the binding precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Allahabad High Court Bar Assn. (supra). Therefore, the cited judgments will not help the petitioner. 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 efforts to expeditiously dispose of the matter as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra), subject to the co- operation of the petitioner. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court for information. 6 2026:HHC:29332 10. The present petition stands disposed of, and so are the pending applications, if any. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 17th July, 2026 (Nikita)