Civil Revision No.4421 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4421 of 2011 Date of Decision:-18.8.2011 Payel Mehta ...Petitioner Versus Sanjay Sarin ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Petitioner in person. Nemo for the respondent. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The epitome of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that Payel Mehta petitioner-wife filed a petition against Sanjay Sarin her husband-respondent, for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce, invoking the provisions of section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”) at Chandigarh. Her husband has also filed a petition under section 9 of the Act against her in the Court of Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. 2. In the wake of transfer petitions filed by the petitioner-wife, the Hon'ble Apex Court transferred the HMA case pending in Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi to the District Court, Chandigarh for trial alongwith the divorce petition, by virtue of order dated 15.11.2010, the operative part of which is (para 3) as under:- “Accordingly, these transfer petitions are allowed and case H.M.A.no.169/2007 (now numbered 25/2010) and Contempt Petition No.M- 09/2010 titled as “Sanjay Sarin vs. Payal Sarin” pending before Additional District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi are ordered to be transferred to the District Court, Chandigarh. The District Court at Chandigarh to take up and dispose of the transferred cases alongwith the divorce petition (H.M.A.Petition No.339 of 2007) filed by the petitioner-wife pending on his file. It is stated that the divorce petition is at the stage of arguments. In view of it, we request the court at Chandigarh to expedite the hearing and trial of the case Civil Revision No.4421 of 2011 -2- that is being transferred so that both cases can be disposed of by a common order. This will not come in the way of the matter being proceeded with in mediation.” 3. Although about nine months have already elapsed, but the matrimonial cases between the parties are still not decided, which necessitated the petitioner-wife to file the present revision petition, for direction to the trial Court to decide the indicated cases in a time frame manner. 4. After hearing the petitioner in person, going through the record, comments of the trial Court and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the instant revision petition deserves to be partly accepted. 5. As is evident from the record that Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the trial court to expedite the hearing and trial of both the cases. The perusal of comments of the trial Court would reveal that the respondent-husband is delaying and in fact has considerably delayed the disposal of the cases for one reason or the other. The cases were repeatedly adjourned on the request of respondent-husband, which is against the spirit of the order of Hon'ble Apex Court and paramount interest of the parties. Therefore, keeping in view the ages of the parties, nature of litigation, future of their children and totality of other facts & circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed hereinabove, to me, it would be in the interest and justice would be sub-served, if the direction is issued to the trial court to conclude the above indicated cases in a time bound manner, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 6. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the present revision petition is partly accepted. Consequently, the trial court is hereby directed to complete the trial of the aforesaid matrimonial cases, in all respects, within a period of four months positively, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. All concerned be informed accordingly. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 18.8.2011 Judge AS