Logo
Court Book - India Code App - Play Store

advertisement

Allahabad High Court Directs Bahraich Family Court to Expedite Maintenance Case, Criticises Lawyers for Poor Assistance and Delays

Shivam Y.

Allahabad High Court directs Bahraich Family Court to expedite Saba Siddiqui maintenance case, criticising poor lawyer assistance and court delays amid heavy caseload. - Smt. Saba @ Saba Siddiqui vs. Shodul Hasan

Allahabad High Court Directs Bahraich Family Court to Expedite Maintenance Case, Criticises Lawyers for Poor Assistance and Delays

Lucknow, September 18 - In a sharp yet reasoned order, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) directed the Principal Judge of the Family Court, Bahraich, to expedite the hearing of Smt. Saba Siddiqui vs. Shodul Hasan, a maintenance case filed under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S). Justice Subhash Vidyarthi's observations went beyond the individual case - turning into a mirror for the larger issue of delays, heavy caseloads, and lack of proper assistance from lawyers.

Read in Hindi

Background

The petitioner, Smt. Saba Siddiqui, had approached the High Court seeking directions for faster disposal of her maintenance petition, which has been pending before the Family Court since June 2023. The Family Court had granted her interim maintenance in March 2025, but the case had been dragging since then, with the next date fixed for May 2025.

However, during the High Court’s hearing, Justice Vidyarthi noted that the petitioner's counsel had failed to properly organize and present the trial court’s orders.

"Copies of the orders were annexed in such a haphazard manner," the judge observed, "that the Court had to invest unduly long time in going through the record."

The Court even reminded counsel that during the previous hearing on September 16, it had granted time to arrange the papers properly. Yet, when the matter was taken up again, counsel began arguing afresh "without even pointing out that the Court had earlier passed over the case to correct the error."

Court’s Observations

Justice Vidyarthi minced no words about the growing burden on the judiciary and the unpreparedness of some advocates. The judge noted that on the very day of the hearing, 91 fresh matters and 182 other cases were listed before his bench, along with six miscellaneous applications - all within a limited sitting time of about 300 minutes.

"The Courts are overburdened with work," Justice Vidyarthi remarked, "and several of the learned counsel do not assist the Court fairly and to the best of their ability."

He reminded the Bar that advocates, while representing clients, are also "responsible officers of the Court" and must cooperate to ensure timely justice. Referring to earlier judgments - Banwari Lal Kanchal vs. Dr. Bhartendu Agarwal (2023) and Vipin Tiwari vs. State of U.P. (2025) - the bench reiterated its appeal for conciseness in pleadings and precision in oral submissions.

The bench observed,

"When such a huge number of cases are being filed before this Court and this Court is expected to clear the entire pendency of bail applications within two months, such poor quality of assistance being provided by Advocates is creating a hurdle in speedy dispensation of justice."

Justice Vidyarthi lamented that despite repeated judicial appeals,

"the members of the Bar have not acceded to the Court’s requests." Yet, he added that the Court, being under oath to perform its duty, had "no option except going through the record" to ensure justice for the petitioner.

Decision

After examining the case records, the Court found that the respondent, Shodul Hasan, had repeatedly failed to appear before the Family Court, forcing the trial court to proceed ex-parte.

Recognizing the importance of timely adjudication in maintenance matters - which directly impact the livelihood and dignity of dependents - Justice Vidyarthi directed the Family Court to decide the case expeditiously and in accordance with law.

"The Family Court," he ordered, "shall not grant any unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties and shall fix dates at short intervals."

With this, the High Court disposed of the petition, leaving no room for procedural delay or tactical postponements.

The order, digitally signed by Court Officer Preeti Gautam, underscored that judicial efficiency is not just about fast disposal, but also about cooperation and discipline - from the Bench as well as the Bar.

Case Title: Smt. Saba @ Saba Siddiqui vs. Shodul Hasan

Case Number: MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. – 5554 of 2025

Date of Order: September 18, 2025

Advertisment