IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6209 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.14921 of 2009)

Ajay Lawania                     ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Shobhna Dubey                    ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the  

respondent, who has appeared in-person.

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.

....2/-

- 2 -

After  receipt  of  the  records  from  the  Court  of  

Principal  Judge,  Family  Court,  Agra,  the  appellant’s  

petition was numbered as R.S. No. 669/2009.  By an order  

dated  25.4.2009,  the  Principal  Judge,  Family  Court,  

Lucknow, directed that both the petitions will be disposed  

of  together  because  the  parties  are  common.   The  

respondent  challenged  that  order  in  Writ  Petition  No.  

2407/2009.  While issuing notice of the writ petition, the  

learned Single Judge of Allabahad High Court stayed the  

operation of order dated 25.4.2009 passed by the Family  

Court,  Lucknow  and,  at  the  same  time,  directed  the  

Principal  Judge,  Family  Court,  Lucknow  to  make  every  

possible endeavour to decide Petition No. 2077/2007 within  

a period of one month by taking up the case on day-to-day  

basis.  Special Appeal No. 378/2009 filed by the appellant  

was dismissed by the Division Bench by observing that it  

was not inclined to interfere with order of the learned  

Single Judge.  While doing so, the Division Bench also  

took notice of the plea of the respondent that the special  

appeal  itself  is  not  maintainable.   Nevertheless,  a  

direction was given for expeditious disposal of the case  

filed by the appellant under Section 13 of the Act.   

It is well settled that if two petitions are filed  

under the Act, one under Section 9 and the other under  

Section 13, then, in order to avoid conflicting decisions,  

it is expedient that both the cases are heard by the same  

Court.  Evidence in the two cases should be recorded one  

after the other, arguments should be heard separately and  

thereafter, separate judgments should be delivered on one  

day.

....3/-

- 3 -

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.

We have been informed that evidence in the petition  

filed  under  Section  9  of  the  Act  has  been  practically  

concluded, but in the divorce case no progress has been  

made.  It is given out that even the written statement has  

not been filed.  Therefore, we direct the Principal Judge,  

Family Court, Lucknow to first conclude the recording of  

evidence  in  the  petition  for  restitution  of  conjugal  

rights.  Thereafter, the pleadings of the divorce petition  

be completed and evidence in that case be recorded.  After  

recording  of evidence  in both  the cases,  the concerned  

Court  should  hear  arguments,  one  after  the  other,  and  

dispose  of  the  two  cases  by  separate  judgments  which  

should be delivered on the same day.

....4/-

- 4 -

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.

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/-

- 5 -

same  within  a  period  of  six  months  from  the  date  of  

receipt / production of copy of this order.

......................J.            [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.            [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, September 11, 2009.