##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8691 of 2026

Pooja Prajapati

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Ravish Kumar

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Deepak Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for Respondent(s) :

Court No. - 9

HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

"i) direct the learned Court concerned to decide the Case No. 291 of 2026

(Pooja Prajapati Vs. Ravish Kumar) Under Section 13 (B) of Hindu

Marriage Act within stipulated period which is pending before the Court

of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-III, Gorakhpur (Annexure

No.1 to this petition)."

2. It is contended that the applicant was married to the opposite party

according to Hindu rites and customs on 18.02.2020. A matrimonial

dispute has arisen between the parties, which led to them living

separately. An application under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act,

1955 was moved before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad on

16.02.2026, which is pending consideration. The prayer made in the writ

petition is for expeditious disposal of the said 13-B petition.

3. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Amardeep Singh vs. Harveen

Kaur (2017) 8 SCC 746 has held as under:

"17. The object of the provision is to enable the parties to dissolve a

marriage by consent if the marriage has irretrievably broken down and to

enable them to rehabilitate them as per available options. The amendment

was inspired by the thought that forcible perpetuation of status of

matrimony between unwilling partners did not serve any purpose. The

object of the cooling-off period was to safeguard against a hurried

decision if there was otherwise possibility of differences being reconciled.

A227 No. 8691 of 2026

2

The object was not to perpetuate a purposeless marriage or to prolong

the agony of the parties when there was no chance of reconciliation.

Though every effort has to be made to save a marriage, if there are no

chances of reunion and there are chances of fresh rehabilitation, the

Court should not be powerless in enabling the parties to have a better

option.

18. In determining the question whether provision is mandatory or

directory, language alone is not always decisive. The court has to have

the regard to the context, the subject-matter and the object of the

provision. This principle, as formulated in Justice G.P. Singh's Principles

of Statutory Interpretation (9th Edn., 2004), has been cited with approval

in Kailash v. Nanhku [Kailash v. Nanhku, (2005) 4 SCC 480] as follows :

(SCC pp. 496-97, para 34)

"34. ...... 'The study of numerous cases on this topic does not lead to

formulation of any universal rule except this that language alone most

often is not decisive, and regard must be had to the context, subject-

matter and object of the statutory provision in question, in determining

whether the same is mandatory or directory. In an oftquoted passage

Lord Campbell said:"No universal rule can be laid down as to whether

mandatory enactments shall be considered directory only or obligatory

with an implied nullification for disobedience. It is the duty of courts of

justice to try to get at the real intention of the legislature by carefully

attending to the whole scope of the statute to be considered."'" (p. 338)

"'For ascertaining the real intention of the legislature', points out

Subbarao, J. 'the court may consider inter alia, the nature and design of

the statute, and the consequences which would follow from construing it

the one way or the other; the impact of other provisions whereby the

necessity of complying with the provisions in question is avoided; the

circumstances, namely, that the statute provides for a contingency of the

non-compliance with the provisions; the fact that the non-compliance

with the provisions is or is not visited by some penalty; the serious or the

trivial consequences, that flow therefrom; and above all, whether the

object of the legislation will be defeated or furthered'. If object of the

enactment will be defeated by