Ajay Lawania vs Shobhna Dubey

The parties were married on 1.10.2001. After about seven years, the appellant filed a petition in the Family Court at Agra under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [for short, "the Act"] for grant of the decree of divorce. The same was registered as H.M. Petition No. 1026/2007. The respondent also filed a petition on 14.12.2007 in the Family Court at Lucknow under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights. The same was registered as Petition No. 2077/2007. By an order dated 18.3.2009 passed in Transfer Application No. 82/2008, a learned single Judge of Allahabad High Court transferred the case pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow.

The respondent pointed out that she had filed a petition under Section 24 of the Act for grant of interim maintenance as early as 22nd December, 2007, but the same has not been decided. This has not been controverted on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, instead of directing the trial Court to decide that petition, we have thought it proper to pass appropriate order in that petition as well. The appellant, who is represented by an Advocate, is present in the Court. He agreed to pay maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month. As the petition for interim maintenance was filed sometime in December, 2007, we direct the appellant to pay maintenance to the respondent at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month with effect from 1st January, 2008 till the disposal of petitions filed under Sections 9 and 13 of the Act. The arrears payable to the respondent from 1st January 2008 to 31st August, 2009 shall be paid within a period of two months from today. The current amount of maintenance beginning from the month of September, 2009 shall be paid by 15th day of the following month. This means that maintenance for the month of September, 2009 shall be paid by 15th October, 2009 and in the like manner for the subsequent months. All the payments shall be made by an account payee demand draft drawn in favour of the respondent on a scheduled bank at Lucknow.

In view of the above, it must be held that the High Court was not at all justified in staying the operation of order dated 25.4.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Family Court, Lucknow and, at the same time, directing him to decide the petition for restitution of conjugal rights within a period of one month. This procedure is not sanctioned by law. If the petition filed by the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights was to be disposed of in terms of the direction given by the learned Single Judge of the High Court (that could not happen because of the stay order passed by this Court), the appellant's cause in the divorce petition would have been seriously prejudiced.

For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed, the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and Division Bench are set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent before the High Court is dismissed because, in our considered view, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the same pending.

Since the petitions filed for grant of divorce and restitution of conjugal rights are pending for last almost two years, we direct the trial Court to dispose of the ....5/-

same within a period of six months from the date of receipt / production of copy of this order.