KANWALVIR SINGH KANG Vs. AMANPREET KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition at the instance of the husband under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 21 -B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short "the Act") for issuing appropriate directions to the trial Court to expedite the decision of HMA Case No.727 of 2015 titled as Kanwalvir Singh Kang vs. Amanpreet Kaur and another.

(2.) It is stated and as evident from the zimni orders, extracted in the grounds of revision petition, the aforesaid divorce petition under Section 13 of the Act was filed on 30.10.2015. Respondent No.1 -wife had put in appearance only after she was ordered to be served by way of publication and thereafter, it is further revealed that about 13 adjournments have been taken for filing the written statement. Even counsel on one occasion had been changed, much less, even earlier Judge had released the matter and the same had been transferred to another Presiding Officer. Mr. Shubham Bhalla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that from the perusal of the zimni orders, it is irresistibly concluded that respondent No.1 -wife, in active connivance with respondent No.2, who has been dismissed from pious service of Additional District and Sessions Judge and practicing as an Advocate adopted all possible dilatory tactics for delaying the decision of the petition, much less, there is apparent defiance of the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in essence, defence of respondent No.1, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, was liable to be struck off, yet the Court below had been granting the opportunities to file written statement subject to payment of costs. Even the order granting the maintenance pendente lite has not been assailed so far, but lame excuses have been given by respondent No.1 for not filing the written statement and thus, urges this Court for issuing appropriate directions to the trial Court below. In support of his aforementioned contentions, relies upon the judgment of this Court rendered in CR No.3259 of 2011 titled as Darshan Lal Bajalia vs. Suman decided on 17.05.2011 and judgment of Calcutta High Court in Joydeb Chandra Dutta vs. Kaberi Dutta @ Das 2012 (8) RCR (Civil) 89, wherein, in identical situation, the Hon'ble Court had issued directions without calling upon the respondent -wife as it would entail into litigation expenses, much less, protraction of the trial.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and appraised the paper book and of the view that in case, such directions are issued, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent -wife, particularly, when the Statute itself mandatorily requires the disposal of the divorce petition, preferably within a period of six months.