Violation Of Wife’s Fundamental Rights: Allahabad High Court Directs Daily Trial In 21 Years Old Case U/S. 498A IPC

The Allahabad High Court observed that prolonged and unexplained inaction by the trial court constitutes not only a denial of timely justice but also a serious erosion of the rule of law and a violation of the petitioner’s fundamental right to a fair and expeditious trial.

The Petitioner-wife filed a writ petition being aggrieved by the prolonged trial and inaction on part of the trial court.

The Bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar observed, “Notwithstanding the considerable lapse of more than two decades since the FIR was registered, it is regrettable that the trial court has failed to commence or conduct any effective proceedings in the matter. This prolonged and unexplained inaction by the trial court constitutes not only a denial of timely justice but also a serious erosion of the rule of law and a violation of the petitioner’s fundamental right to a fair and expeditious trial. Such judicial inertia demands the urgent intervention of this Hon’ble Court to safeguard the petitioner’s constitutional and legal rights, ensure the proper administration of justice, and prevent any further miscarriage of justice.”

Case Brief

A Petition was filed with the prayer to direct the trial court to commence the proceedings under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 323 IPC, read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Petitioner has been employed as an Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Zoology at Hindu College. The petitioner’s husband holds a BAMS degree, an MD in Ayurveda, and was stated to be employed as a resident doctor at Dev Bhommi Hospital, Haridwar, before their marriage.

It was contended that the parties got married in 2003 and had two children out of the wedlock, however, the Petitioner-wife was subject to continuous harassment, physical abuses, and mental cruelty by her husband and other family members, all in connection with demands for additional dowry.

Further, it was also submitted that the accused persons are influential persons who have been obstructing the fair and timely administration of justice on multiple fake and engineered grounds. Initially, for a period of 15 years, the proceedings could not take place due to the stay order granted by this Court. Subsequently, the trial court showed no interest in advancing the matter. Furthermore, as per the order of the Trial Court, the stay on the arrest of the accused(s) was granted till the conclusion of the trial. However, the petitioner-wife contends that the accused(s) have shown a blatant disregard for the law.

It was also contended that the accused have also persistently exerted pressure on the petitioner-wife to compromise and withdraw all criminal cases, and to agree to an unconditional divorce.

Court’s Analysis

At the outset, the Court noted that persistent hardship was endured by the petitioner-wife since the solemnization of her marriage. “The cumulative impact of these adversities has rendered her personal life intolerable and unsustainable. Considering these circumstances, the matter demands the immediate attention and intervention of this Court to safeguard the petitioner’s legal and constitutional rights and to ensure the administration of justice”, the Court said.

The Court observed that the prolonged and unexplained inaction by the trial court constitutes not only a denial of timely justice but also a serious erosion of the rule of law and a violation of the petitioner-wife’s fundamental right to a fair and expeditious trial. Such judicial inertia demands the urgent intervention of the Court to safeguard the petitioner-wife’s constitutional and legal rights, ensure the proper administration of justice, and prevent any further miscarriage of justice.

The Court also noted that the trial court record suggests that the accused(s) have filed personal exemption application consistently and failed to appear on 35 times, thereby exacerbating the petitioner-wife’s hardship and distress.

The High Court directed, inter alia, “The accused persons in both the cases referred in prayer clause are directed to appear before the learned trial court on the next date fixed, and thereafter on all successive dates. In the event of their failure to appear without sufficient and justifiable cause, the trial court shall record detailed reasons while considering any application for personal exemption. Further, the court shall maintain a record in each subsequent order indicating the number of times such personal exemption applications have been filed and the grounds mentioned therein. If the accused(s) fail to appear without valid cause, their bail bonds shall be forfeited, non-bailable warrants shall be issued for their arrest, and they shall be taken into custody and produced before the trial court to face trial without any further delay.”

Accordingly, the Writ Petition was allowed.

Cause Title: Sudha Agarwal Alias Sudha Garg V. State of U.P & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:136056)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Dr. Sudha Garg

Respondent: Advocate Krishna Dutt Tiwari

Click here to read/download Judgment