divorce on the ground of cruelty

While dealing with a wife's prayer to direct the Trial Court to commence hearing a cruelty case, the Allahabad High Court observed that it was regrettable that after more than 2 decades of filing FIR & chargesheet, the trial had not commenced. Stating that the Court was conscious of the Trial Court's workload, Justice Vinod Diwakar observed “Notwithstanding the considerable lapse of more than two decades since the FIR was registered, it is regrettable that the trial court has failed to commence or conduct any effective proceedings in the matter. This prolonged and unexplained inaction by the trial court constitutes not only a denial of timely justice but also a serious erosion of the rule of law and a violation of the petitioner's fundamental right to a fair and expeditious trial".

Such judicial inertia demands the urgent intervention of this Hon'ble Court to safeguard the petitioner's constitutional and legal rights, ensure the proper administration of justice, and prevent any further miscarriage of justice.” Marriage between parties was solemnized in 2003, however, due to alleged dowry demand the wife-petitioner was forcibly removed from her marital home without her children in 2004. Thereafter, she lodged FIR under Sections 498A(cruelty), 504, 506(criminal intimidation), 323 IPC, read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The accused approached the High Court where they were granted protection from arrest till the conclusion of the trial provided they paid her compensation determined by the Court. 

After chargesheet was filed, summons were issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. However, the same were stayed by the High Court in 2005 which was finally vacated in 2010. The case against summons was eventually dismissed for want of prosecution. Meanwhile, non-bailable warrants were issued against the accused. Solely based on an application by the accused, the non-bailable warrants were recalled. 

The Court observed that for 21 years no progress had taken place in the case, to the extent that police report and documents had not been supplied to the accused. Petitioner-wife pleaded that because the accused were influential people and connected with people in District Judiciary and Politics, her case was not being taken up and she was facing harassment at work. The Court observed that to safeguard the Constitutional rights of the petitioner, immediate intervention was required in the case. Perusing the record of the Trial Court, the Court observed that the accused had failed to appear 35 times before the Court to let the trial proceed. 

One of the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence is the right to a free, fair, and expeditious trial. When this right is not upheld, litigants inevitably lose faith in the judicial process. If the trial court continues to grant exemptions to the witnesses without justifiable reason, and fails to compel their attendance, the integrity of the trial process itself may be compromised.” Allowing the petition, the Court directed that the Trial Court to proceed with the "trial on a day-to-day basis, and/or weekly-basis by recording reasons, without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either party" and conclude the same "expeditiously". "The accused persons in both the cases referred in prayer clause are directed to appear before the learned trial court on the next date fixed, and thereafter on all successive dates. In the event of their failure to appear without sufficient and justifiable cause, the trial court shall record detailed reasons while considering any application for personal exemption. Further, the court shall maintain a record in each subsequent order indicating the number of times such personal exemption applications have been filed and the grounds mentioned therein," the high court said. It further said that if accused persons fail to appear without valid cause, their bail bonds shall be forfeited, non-bailable warrants shall be issued for their arrest, and they shall be taken into custody and produced before the trial court to face trial without any further delay.

While parting, the Court observed that the directions were being issued in this particular case, and were not to be treated as binding precedence. 

Case Title: Sudha Agarwal Alias Sudha Garg v. State of U.P. And 10 others MATTER UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 3880 of 2025

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

Lawyer for alimony in Sundar Nagar

 Best divorce lawyer

Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court delhi 

Top divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court delhi 

Maintenance case lawyer in karkarkardooma Court delhi

Domestic violence case lawyer in karkardooma Court delhi

Transfer petition case lawyer

NRI mutual consent divorce case lawyer

Matrimonial dispute case lawyer

Lawyer for interim maintenance case in karkarkardooma Court delhi

Best divorce case lawyer in East delhi

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

+91 85957 22509

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

+91 85957 22509

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

+91 85957 22509

Best Divorce lawyer

Best divorce lawyer in karkardooma Court

Best divorce lawyer in East delhi

Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court

Best divorce lawyer in Delhi

Best divorce case lawyer in Delhi

Best divorce lawyer in new delhi

Best divorce lawyer in Tis Hazari Court central Delhi

Best divorce lawyer in saket Court South Delhi

Best divorce lawyer in dwarka Court delhi

Best divorce lawyer in rohini Court

Best divorce lawyer in North Delhi

Mutual consent divorce lawyer

Best mutual divorce lawyer

Maintenance case lawyer

Domestic violence case lawyer

Contested divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

Adultery divorce case lawyer in Delhi India