The main legal point established is the obligation of the trial court to conclude the trial in a divorce petition within the stipulated time frame, with limitations on granting adjournments.

1. - This petition has been filed seeking a direction that the trial in C.M. Case No. 614 of 2011, Rakesh Kumar @ Rocky Sachdeva v. Smt. Jyoti Madan , filed by the petitioner under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1955 Act') before the Judge Family Court Alwar be expedited with reference to Section 21B(2) of the Act, 1955 wherein it has been provided that every petition under the 1955 Act, shall be tried as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of service of notice of the petition on the respondent.

2. The petitioner who is present in person submits that the petition under Section 13 of the 1955 Act, was filed on 9-12-2011 seeking a declaration that the marriage on 7-12-2008 between the petitioner and the respondent, Smt. Jyoti Madan, was void. He submits that the respondent-wife has been served on 27-4-2012. His case is that in terms of Section 21B(2) of the 1955 Act, the Judge Family Court Alwar ought to have been conscious of the statutory provision and expedited the trial. Yet the trial in the matter is proceeding at very slow pace.

3. The petitioner submits that after service of notice on the respondent wife it was incumbent upon the District Judge Alwar to fast track the trial with the intent of completing it in six months. Instead the trial did not proceeding as warranted under the 1955 Act, in spite of the respondent wife Jyoti Madan having filed the reply to the petition on 13-8-2012. It is submitted that the case has now been transferred to the court of Judge Family Court Alwar on 23-1-2013. The petitioner submits that the learned Judge Family Court be directed that now adjournments be granted only as an exception and not as a right on the mere asking and adjournments when necessary should be by way of reasoned orders with the sole object of ensuring a fair trial and not be used an instrument of harassment of the petitioning husband.

4. Having heard the petitioner, I am of the view that in the facts of the case, it would be just and proper to direct the Judge Family Court Alwar to conclude the trial in the divorce petition filed by the petitioner husband within a period of six months from the next date of hearing. Adjournment in the matter shall not be granted without just cause and only by a reasoned order on a proper application being filed for the purpose.With these directions, this writ petition is disposed of.Petition disposed of.

*******