Mohammad Tauseeque Ashraf v. Jaya Priyam
$~4.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM(M) 574/2018 MOHAMMAD TAUSEEQUE ASHRAF ..... Petitioner Through:
Mr. Iqbal Ashraf Rahmani, Adv.
versus JAYA PRIYAM ..... Respondent Through:
None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
O R D E R
% 24.07.2018 1.
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred seeking direction for time bound trial, within a period of six months of (a) Mohammad Tauseeque Ashraf Vs. Jaya Priyam, SMA No. __of 2017 under Section 27(b) and (d) of The Special Marriage Act, 1954; (b) Jaya Priyam Vs. Mohammad Tauseeque Ashraf, SMA No.93/2017 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C; and, (c) Jaya Priyam Vs. Mohammad Tauseeque Ashraf, SMA No.22 of 2017 under Section 22 of The Special Marriage Act, 1954, all pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Patiala House, New Delhi.
2.
The petition came up first before this Court on 15th May, 2018 when notice thereof was ordered to be issued.
3.
The report of the Registry is that the petitioner did not take any steps for having the notice issued.
4.
It is quite obvious that the petitioner himself is lackadaisical in pursuing the proceedings and such a petitioner cannot be granted the relief sought.
CM(M) 574/2018
5.
Even otherwise, a perusal of the petition does not show any ground for giving priority to the petitioner over other litigants before the Family Court, the nature of whose dispute is the same as that of the petitioner. 6.
The counsel for the petitioner also has not appeared and has sent Mr. Mirza Hamid Beig who does not know anything about the case and only seeks passover.
7.
The matter, if passedover is unlikely to reach again. Even otherwise, as aforesaid, the petitioner is not found entitled to the relief claimed. 8.
Dismissed.
9.
No costs.
10.
The counsel for the petitioner has come at this stage and is unable to respond to any of the aforesaid reasons. Thus, the order of dismissal remains.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J JULY 24, 2018 'pp'..
CM(M) 574/2018