HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 3789 of 2026 Court No. - 78 HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J. 1. Heard Mr. Bhawani Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 529 of BNSS has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to direct the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarnagar to consider and decide the application for interim maintenance as well as maintenance Case No. 1933 of 2025 dated 24.11.2025, under Section 144 of BNSS (Smt. Manju vs. Saurabh) as expeditiously as possible within stipulated period fixed by this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the proceedings before the Court concerned be directed to be concluded in a time- bound manner. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that in this case, an application for interim maintenance as well as aforesaid case were filed before the learned Court below on 24.11.2025, which are still pending and have not been decided till date. Therefore, he requested that a direction to learned Court below be issued to decide the aforesaid interim maintenance application as well as aforesaid maintenance case within a stipulated period of time. 4. Learned A.G.A. has no objection in this regard if the Court below is not already overloaded with huge pendency of such cases. 5. Hon'ble Apex Court in Shaikh Uzma Feroz Hussain vs. State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 587 of 2023 has observed that every High Court and every Court in the country has a Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bhawani Prasad Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Smt Manju Rani And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) huge pendency, the constitutional Court should avoid temptation of fixing a time bound schedule for disposal of any case before any Court unless the situation is extraordinary. 6. Hon'ble Apex Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of U.P. and others, (2024) 6 SCC 267 has observed in paragraph 42, which is reproduced as under:- "Constitutional Courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for disposal of cases pending in any Court. The pattern of pendecny 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." 7. Thus, law as far as issuance of a direction for time- bound/expeditious disposal has already been well settled that only when an exceptional circumstance is made out, a direction for time- bound/expeditious disposal of such a case can be issued not otherwise. 8. Learned counsel for the applicants has failed to make out any exceptional circumstance to issue direction for time- bound/expeditious disposal of case, at this stage. Accordingly, the relief sought by way of present application is hereby refused. 9. Considering the nature of prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants, the interest of justice would be served, in the event, the applicants apply before the Court concerned for expeditious disposal of above mentioned case as well as their interim maintenance application. Therefore, the applicants are given liberty to move appropriate application(s) before the Court concerned for bringing out all such facts, which are necessary for expeditious disposal of their maintenance case and interim application for maintenance, within two weeks from today and in case, such applications are moved, the Court concerned shall decide the same within two weeks from the date of filing of such application(s). If, Court concerned comes to the conclusion that the case for expeditious disposal is made out, then in that eventuality, it shall decide the same as expeditiously as possible within a reasonable period. NA529 No. 3789 of 2026 2 10. Before parting with the judgment, this Court would like to draw attention of Court concerned that the law of maintenance under Section 144 BNSS is well settled and proceedings under this section are of summary nature and are intended to enable destitute wives and children to get maintenance in a speedy manner. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution by providing a speedy remedy for supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife and children. It's primary object is to give social justice to the women, child and infirm parents etc. It is a bounden duty of a Court concerned to ensure compliance of binding directions issued by Apex Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC 324 in letter and spirit, one of such binding direction is that the concerned Court must make an endeavour to decide the interim maintenance application within a period of four to six months at the latest, by a reasoned order, after the Affidavits of Disclosure have been filed before it (Para 72.10.(j)). The Apex Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and another (supra) has also framed uniform guidelines in paragraph-72.3.(c) regarding payment of interim maintenance. The relevant part of paragraph- 72.3.(c) of the aforesaid judgment, is reproduced herein under: " 72.3.(c). The respondent must submit the reply along with the Affidavit of Disclosure within a maximum period of four weeks. The courts may not grant more than two opportunities for submission of the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to the respondent. If the respondent delays in filing the reply with the affidavit, and seeks more than two adjournments for this purpose, the court may consider exercising the power to strike off the defence of the respondent, if the conduct is found to be wilful and contumacious in delaying the proceedings. On the failure to file the affidavit within the prescribed time, the Family Court may proceed to decide the application for maintenance on the basis of the affidavit filed by the applicant and the pleadings on record;" 11. It is important to observe here that every such Court has inherent powers to even grant ad-interim maintenance to provide immediate help to such applicant(s) until proper adjudication of the claim for interim maintenance, which ad-interim maintenance can be granted, if there is an intentional delay by the opposite party in disposal of an application for interim maintenance. 12. A perusal of the certified copy of the order sheet reveals that four adjournments have already been granted by the concerned Court on NA529 No. 3789 of 2026 3 23.01.2026, 19.02.2026, 3.4.2026 and 13.08.2026. Such casual and lackadaisical approach on the part of the Court concerned can not be appreciated in the light of the above mentioned binding directions issued by the Apex Court, because such an approach in maintenance proceedings is directly in the teethes of aforesaid judgment. 13. It is also provided that in the event there is any legal impediment before the Court concerned in disposal of the case, then the Court concerned shall pass an appropriate order disclosing the legal impediment as to why the proceedings of the above mentioned case cannot be proceeded with. 14. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the present application is disposed of. September 8, 2026 Monika NA529 No. 3789 of 2026 4 (Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) Digitally signed by :- MONIKA KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad