Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Bench of Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J, dismissed a petition that revolved around the petitioner’s post-admission steps for service of notice on the private respondents.

The petitioner was required to take post-admission steps for the service of the private respondents. For this purpose, the case was listed before the Additional Registrar (Judicial), however, for want of requisite steps notices could not be issued. Thereafter, though steps were taken by the petitioner majority of the notices were received back unserved for want of correct address and in some cases even the respondents reported to have died. Petitioner was directed to take fresh steps for service of unserved respondents within four weeks and during the same time was also directed to take steps for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased respondents. However, neither the process fee for unserved respondents nor steps for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased respondents were taken by the petitioner. The court observed that no one had even cared to put in an appearance on behalf of the petitioner before the concerned Registrar, which clearly indicated that the petitioner was no longer interested in pursuing the instant.

The Court thus rejected dismissed the petition. [Sadhana v. Nikki Devi, 2019 SCC OnLine HP 44, decided on 08-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Ashok Kumar Gaur, J., disposed of the current petition seeking an early date for a divorce proceeding.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-husband seeking a direction to give early date in divorce petition pending in Family Court Jaipur filed this instant petition. He had also prayed for early disposal of the application of divorce petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The office had registered the divorce application on 25-09-2018 and issued notices to respondent-wife by fixing the next date i.e. 12-02-2019.

The counsels for the petitioner, Mr Prashant Sharma and Mr Prateek Khandelwal, submitted that the petitioner was facing not only mental trauma but he was also being harassed by his in-laws every day and as such disposal of the application for divorce petition was the need of the hour. They also argued that Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides that trial should be continued from day to day and further as per sub-section (2) the divorce petition should be tried expeditiously and endeavour should be made to conclude the trial within six months.

The High Court while discussing Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 stated that endeavor is required to be made to decide the divorce petition expeditiously and the endeavor should be there to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of service of notice of the petition upon the respondent. The Court found that date of service of notice in the instant petition was already fixed on 12-02-2019. The instant petition was thus disposed of observing that no unnecessary adjournment should be taken by parties during the pendency of divorce petition. [Vipul Khandelwal v. Nikita Khandelwal, 2018 SCC OnLine Raj 2322, order dated 11-12-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of S.P. Garg, J., dismissed a criminal leave petition before it, preferred by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence for leave to appeal against an acquittal.

The arguments advanced by the petitioner were that the trial court did not appreciate the evidence before it in correct perspective. Further, that the investigating agency had issued summons and were duly served on the respondent by speed post which the respondent had ignored. The petitioner further argued that the trial court had failed to consider the statutory presumption of service of summons sent by speed post as prescribed under Section 27 of the General Clause Act, coupled with Section 114 of the Evidence Act. Further, it was alleged that the respondent was avoiding appearing as he was involved in a serious case under Section 135 of the Customs Act.

The Court upon appreciation of evidence noted that the petitioner had not attempted to deliver the summons to the respondent directly at any point. Also they relied exclusively on tracking reports to make the case, while to who the summons was being delivered was not clear at any point. The impugned judgment also had recorded that the summons were delivered as per tracking reports on 14.09.2016, while the date of appearance mentioned therein was 13.09.2016. The Court reiterated that before initiating criminal proceedings against the respondent, the investigating agency was duty bound to ensure that the summons had been duly served and that he had deliberately or intentionally avoided appearing. Petition dismissed. [Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Raju Arora, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7070, decided on 05.02.2018]