Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 4551 (MAD)

Natasha Oza & Another v. Kumar Ranganathan

2008-12-05

M.VENUGOPAL

body2008
Judgment :- Common Order: 1. The revision petitioner/wife has filed these civil revision petitions praying this Court to issue a direction to the First Additional Family Court at Chennai to dispose of cases viz., O.P.No.1508 of 2006, G.W.O.P.No.2744 of 2006, M.C.No.165 of 2007 and O.P.No.1056 of 2007 pending on its file respectively within a period of two months or such other period determined by this Court. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/wife submits that O.P.No.1508 of 2006 has been filed by the petitioner herein before the First Additional Family Court at Chennai praying for dissolution of the marriage dated 14. 1991 which has taken place between herself and the respondent/husband and that the conciliation proceedings have been completed and that the original petition has been posted for filing of proof affidavit on 111. 2008 and that the matter is pending for nearly three years and the same has not been disposed of and further that the respondent/husband has filed originally a petition in O.P.No.139 of 2006 on the file of this Court for custody of the only minor child Anasuya and on 211. 2006, this Court has passed an interim order requiring the parties to negotiate the settlement in respect of matrimonial matters and in regard to the minor child and further that the compromise talks has not taken place and later the O.P.No.139 of 2006 has been transferred to the file of the First Additional Family Court at Chennai on the revision petitioner filing a transfer application and that subsequently, the same has been re-numbered as O.P.No.1056 of 2007 on the file of the First Additional Family Court at Chennai and that these matters require early disposal, since all the proceedings between the parties are ripe for joint trial and therefore in the interest of justice, these revision petitions are to be allowed by this Court by directing the trial Court to dispose of the aforesaid cases within a reasonable time fixed by this Court. 3. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/wife submits that the revision petitioner/wife has filed G.W.O.P.No.2744 of 2006 on the file of the First Additional Family Court at Chennai praying for the relief of appointing and declaring the petitioner as guardian for the minor child viz., Anasuya aged about seven years and for declaring the petitioner, who has the custody of the minor child Anasuya and that the said O.P. is pending for nearly three years due to want of cooperation from the respondent/husband and that O.P.Nos.1056 of 2007, 1508 of 2006, G.W.O.P.No.2744 of 2006 and M.C.No.165 of 2007 filed by the minor daughter represented by the petitioner praying for maintenance were all posted for conciliation and the same were ended in failure and report in this regard has been submitted to the Court and when the above matters came up for final disposal on 19. 2008, the respondent/husband has not appeared and time has been sought for on his behalf as the matter was called before the In charge Court viz., Second Additional Family Court at Chennai due to the vacancy in the First Additional Family Court at Chennai and the case has been adjourned to 111. 2008 and that the petitioner/wife is at liberty to file the proof affidavit as examination in chief in the next hearing for joint trial. As far as O.P. for divorce is concerned, the marriage between the parties are irretrievably broken down and even before they left from USA to India in May 2005, they mutually resolved to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent and further that since the respondent /husband failed to pay maintenance amount to the minor child, the minor child Anasuya has filed M.C.No.165 of 2007 for maintenance at the rate of Rs.21,100/- per mensum and the minor child has filed a petition in M.P.No.509 of 2007 in M.C.No.165 of 2007 praying for interim maintenance and that an order has been passed by the Court on 19. 2007 directing the respondent/husband to pay a sum of Rs.20,333/- per mensum to the minor child as interim maintenance and that as against the said order the respondent/husband has filed Crl.R.C.No.1618 of 2007 before this Court wherein an order of interim stay has been granted and the respondent/husband has been directed to pay the interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per mensum and the said Criminal revision case is still pending and that due to the pendency of the above said cases, the minor child is put to severe stress and strain and therefore prays for early disposal of G.W.O.P.No.2744 of 2006 within the time framed to be determined by this Court. 4. Moreover, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/wife contends that the respondent/husband has filed O.P.No.1056 of 2007 on the file of the First Additional Family Court at Chennai praying for the relief of custody of the minor child Anasuya aged seven years and that the petitioner/wife has filed a counter and after the completion of conciliation proceedings, the matter has been posted for filing proof affidavit on 111. 2008 and that the matter is pending for nearly three years and therefore prays for direction being issued to the trial Court to dispose of O.P.No.1056 of 2007 within a period to be determined by this Court. 5. According to the learned counsel for the respondent/husband from January 2008 till March 2008, there has been no Judge in the First Additional Family Court at Chennai and then in four weeks there has been a Judge and from April 2008 till October 2008, there has been no Judge in the First Additional Family Court at Chennai and that when the case came up before the Second Additional Judge(in charge)Family Court at Chennai in respect of the First Additional Family Court at Chennai, posted the matters for enquiry on 110. 2008 and 2004 cases are posted in the list and some of the cases of the year 2005 are also coming up in the list and when this is the position, what is an extraordinary urgency in these cases to take up the same out of turn and the matter has been posted for enquiry only and nothing has been stated in regard to the filing of proof affidavit and that the revision petitioner/wife has filed a divorce petition in USA against the respondent/husband in the year 2001 -2002 and the same has been withdrawn and after that the parties lived together for four years and that the child has been brought to India and for visiting rights, the respondent/husband has to file a petition against the revision petitioner/wife and that the respondent/husband has taken a house in Madras on rent and he is coming on every Saturday in a week and for seven months, he has not seen the child and the expedite disposal is not for the main case but also for the Application No.4726 of 2006 filed by the respondent/husband in respect of visiting rights and that from June 2009, four months time may be granted by this Court to the trial Court to dispose of the said cases pending between the parties. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/ wife submits that the respondent/husband has deserted the petitioner/wife when the child was six months old and that he has not paid a single pie to the petitioner/wife and that parties have corresponded through E-Mail and therefore that in the interest of justice, time frame may be determined by this Court in directing the trial Court to dispose of the pending matters between the parties. 7. It cannot be gain said that the main purpose behind an enactment and objects and reasons of the Family Courts Act 1984 is to provide a forum for speedy settlement of disputes which are specified under the Act. Even the guardianship matters arising for consideration before the Family Court can be dealt with under the Act. No doubt, the preamble of the Act mentions that it provides for establishments of the Family Courts with a view to promote conciliation in and secure speedy settlement of disputes relating to the marriage and family affairs and for matters connected there with. No doubt, the preamble of the Act mentions that it provides for establishments of the Family Courts with a view to promote conciliation in and secure speedy settlement of disputes relating to the marriage and family affairs and for matters connected there with. In conformity with these preamble, the Family Courts Act has come to be passed in the year 1984. 8. On a careful consideration of the respective contentions advanced on either side, without going into merits and demerits of the pending various proceedings between the parties, this Court in the interest of justice, directs the trial Court to dispose of O.P.No.1508 of 2006,G.W.O.P.No.2744 of 2006,M.C.No.165 of 2007 and O.P.No.1056 of 2007 respectively and also A.No.4726 of 2006 filed by the respondent/husband for visiting rights,within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The trial Court is directed to provide due opportunities to both parties and the parties are directed to cooperate with the trial Court in regard to the completion of the proceedings so that the controversies/disputes between the parties can be determined comprehensively and given a quietus once and for all. 9. With these observations and directions, these civil revision petitions are disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps are closed.