HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 140/2010 (M/S) Sri Vikas Sharma. …Petitioner Versus Smt. Anita Sharma. …Respondent Shri I.P. Kohli, Advocate for the petitioner, Smt. Mamta Joshi, Advocate for respondent. Dated: March 9, 2010 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard Sri I.P. Kohli, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Mamta Joshi, the learned counsel for respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed seeking direction commanding the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun to decide expeditiously the Original Suit No. 70 of 2008, Vikas Sharma vs. Anita Sharma, pending before him preferably within a period of three months. 3. Perusal of the record reveals that on 15.02.2008 a divorce suit was instituted by the petitioner under Section 13 read with Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun seeking decree of divorce dissolving the marriage dated 07.10.2005 solemnized in between the petitioner and respondent and also for seeking permanent custody of the minor son master Prem born out of the wedlock. On filing the said suit, notice was issued to the respondent, which was served upon the respondent on 03.03.2008. It is submitted that both the parties are appearing before the Court below on the date fixed by the Court and now the case is fixed for final hearing. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Sub Section-2 of Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, provides that every petition under this Act shall be tried as expeditiously as possible, and endeavour shall be made 2 to conclude the trial within six months from the date of service of notice of the petition on the respondent. It is alleged that the petitioner is suffering hard, as he remains posted away from his house and presently he is posted at Siachin. Apart from this, there is no other member in the family of the petitioner to pursue his case which is pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehrdun. Hence, the petitioner has prayed for speedy trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in view of this mandatory provision contained in the Act, the Trial Court should have decided the divorce petition within the time schedule under the Act. 5. A bare perusal of the record it reveals that a Suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent and for seeking permanent custody of the minor son master Prem born out of the wedlock was filed way back i.e. on 15.02.2008 and notice thereof was issued to the respondent and was served upon the respondent on 03.03.2008. The respondent presented herself before the Court on 10.04.2008. On 14.08.2008 the respondent filed her objection. Thereafter the case was being adjourned for one reason or the other. It appears that the Trial Court has overlooked the provision of speedy trial in the matrimonial matters, as has been enumerated in Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. For proper appreciation of the argument Sub Section 2 of Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act is reproduced hereunder:- “(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 the petition on the respondent.” 3 6. This Court is of the considered opinion that the mandatory provision has been enumerated in the Act keeping in mind that delay in such matters will adversely affect both the parties in different manner. Delay will also certainly adversely affect the mind of small child born out of wedlock. The Trial Court must not overlook the mandatory provision contained under the Act. In the present case Sub Section-2 of Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, provides that every petition under the 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 the petition on the respondent. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after considering every aspect of the matter under dispute, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun is directed to decide the Original Suit No. 70 of 2008, pending before him, expeditiously within a period of four months from today. 8. With this direction, the writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs. 9. All the pending applications stand disposed of. (V.K. Bist, J.) 09.03.2010 NCM: