HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 4303 of 2026 Court No. - 78 HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and perused material on record. 2. The present application has been filed by the applicant with prayer to direct the learned trial court to decide/expedite the Complaint Case No. 3090 of 2024 (Smt. Sonam vs. Mayank Kartikey Verma and others), under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, P.S. Hanumant Vihar, District Kanpur Nagar, pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Kanpur Nagar within stipulated period. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant 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 applicant that Complaint Case No. 3090 of 2024 was filed before Court concerned alongwith an application under Section 23 of Domestic Violence Act for interim maintenance on 24.7.2024 which are still pending and have not been decided till date. Therefore, he requested that a direction to learned trial court be issued to decide the aforesaid application/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 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 extra ordinary. 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 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, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Richa Srivastav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Smt Sonam .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 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 applicant has failed to make out any exceptional circumstances to issue direction for time-bound/expeditious disposal of case, at this stage. Accordingly, relief sought by way of present application is hereby refused. 9. Before parting with the judgment, this Court would like to draw attention of Court concerned that the law of maintenance is 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 the 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 trial Court to ensure compliance of directions issued by Apex Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and another (2021) 2 SCC 324 in letter and spirit, one of such direction is that the concerned Court must make an endevour 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 (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-below:- 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. The Family Court/District Court/Magistrate's Court concerned must make an endeavour to decide the IA for interim maintenance by a reasoned order, within a period of four to six months at the latest, after the Affidavits of Disclosure have been filed before the court." 10. It is important to observe here that every such Court has inherent power to even grant ad-interim maintenance to provide immediate help to the applicant until proper adjudication of the claim for interim maintenance, which ad-interim maintenance can be granted if there is an intentional delay by opposite party in disposal of an NA529 No. 4303 of 2026 2 application for interim maintenance. 11. 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. 12. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of with aforesaid direction. September 9, 2026 Dhirendra/ NA529 No. 4303 of 2026 3 (Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad