CR No.3259/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3259/2011 Date of decision: 17.05.2011. Darshan Lal Bajalia ....................Petitioner v. Suman .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.Raman Mahajan,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Petitioner/husband has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution read with Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for issuing directions to the learned trial court to decide HMA Case No.608/2007 titled as Darshan Lal Bajalia v. Mrs.Suman, within a period of two months. It is stated that on 5.10.2007 the petitioner husband filed the aforesaid divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short the Act) on the ground on cruelty. Respondent wife put in appearance through her counsel on 9.8.2008 and after filing of the written statement issues were framed on 18.11.2008. Evidence of the petitioner was closed on 20.1.2010. Thereafter, since 19.2.2010 the respondent wife has availed five effective opportunities to lead her evidence including a statement made by the counsel for the respondent wife on 6.1.2011 to the effect that the evidence of the respondent wife shall be deemed to be closed if the entire evidence is not concluded on CR No.3259/2011 2 the next date i.e. 3.3.2011 at her own responsibility. However, the evidence was not concluded on 3.3.2011 or on 19.4.2011 and the case is now fixed for remaining evidence on 2.8.2011. The relevant zimni orders have been reproduced in the body of the revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is posted as Director (Headquarter) Military Engineering Service at Chandigarh since July 2007 and his normal tenure of posting at a place is for three years and as such he is expecting his transfer any day, thus, unnecessary delay in concluding the divorce proceedings would cause serious prejudice to the petitioner as it would be difficult for a senior Military officer to seek frequent leaves to attend Court at Chandigarh. It is next contended that in view of provisions of Section 21-B(2) of the Act, it is incumbent on the Courts to conclude the trial of the divorce petition within six months of the service of the notice of the petition on the respondent. It would be advantageous to reproduce the relevant extracts of sub sections (1) and (2) of Section 21-B of the Act, which read as under:- ”21B. Special provision relating to trial and disposal of petitions under the Act. (1)The trial of a petition under this Act shall, so far as is practicable consistently with the interests of justice in respect of the trial, be continued from day to day until its conclusion unless the Court finds the adjournment of the trial beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded. (2)Every petition under this Act shall be tried as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of service of notice of CR No.3259/2011 3 the petition on the respondent. (3)Xxx xxxx xxxxxx xxxx xxxxx x” After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and keeping in view the facts of the present case and for the view I propose to take, I do not deem it necessary to issue notice to the respondent wife as it would unnecessarily entail expenses and delay in the matter. Keeping in view the provisions of the sub section (2) of Section 21-B of the Act and the fact that the respondent wife who is residing in Chandigarh itself and has already availed sufficient opportunities, I deem it necessary and expedient in the interest of justice to dispose of the present revision petition with a direction to the learned trial court to dispose of the aforesaid divorce petition expeditiously and preferably within three months from the next date of hearing. Disposed of in the above terms. 17.05.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge