Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 796 (CAL)

Joydeb Chandra Dutta v. Kaberi Dutta @ Das

2011-06-16

RAGHUNATH RAY

body2011
Judgment 1. THE judgment of the Court was as follows:- In this revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the husband petitioner has prayed for an order directing the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, at Jalpaiguri to dispose of Matrimonial Suit No. 134 of 2007 as also the connected Misc. Case No. 20 of 2008 as expeditiously as possible. 2. APPEARING on behalf of the petitioner it is submitted by Mr. Mina, that the instant matrimonial suit is pending for about three years and a half causing much hardship and unbearable mental agony to both spouses. According to him, such inordinate delay in disposal of the matrimonial suit under Section 13(1(i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short the said Act) instituted at the instance of the petitioner husband has violated the statutory provisions envisaged in 21B(2) of the said Act which provides that every petition under this 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. Further, the connected Misc. Case under Section 24 of the said Act filed by the wife respondent/opposite party praying for litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.11,000/- has also been kept pending without adhering to the proviso to Section 24 of the said Act which speaks about disposal of such proceeding within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the wife or the husband, as the case may be. According to him, in view of such specific statutory provisions, this revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be disposed of even in the absence of the respondent/opposite party since the specific order directing speedy disposal would not cause any prejudice to the respondent/opposite party wife. 3. I have meticulously perused the certified copies of order sheets containing Order Nos. 1 to 41 annexed to the petition. It is found that the learned Court below made an endeavour as per statutory requirement to effect a reconciliation between the estranged couple vide Order No. 20 dated 15.1.2009. Their daughter aged 18 years studying in Class XI is, however, residing under the care and supervision of the mother. 1 to 41 annexed to the petition. It is found that the learned Court below made an endeavour as per statutory requirement to effect a reconciliation between the estranged couple vide Order No. 20 dated 15.1.2009. Their daughter aged 18 years studying in Class XI is, however, residing under the care and supervision of the mother. It appears from the said Order No. 20 dated 15.1.2009 that after a long discussion with the couple the talk of reconciliation between the parties failed and the suit was fixed for peremptory hearing on 13.2.2009. 4. THEREAFTER more than two years silently elapsed but neither the Misc. Case No. 20 of 2008 nor the Matrimonial Suit No. 134 of 2007 itself has yet been disposed of. Unfortunately, order sheets reflected a very sorry State of affairs. The parties have statutory right to get the Matrimonial Suit as also the connected Misc. case disposed of at least within a reasonable period of time. But unfortunately, even the Misc. Case under Section 24 of the said Act wherein the respondent wife claimed Rs.11,000/- towards litigation cost during pendency of the proceeding is also yet to be disposed of. There is no doubt that sometimes adjournment has been granted at the instance of either of the sides. At any rate, it is the need of the hour that Matrimonial Suit should not be kept pending for a pretty long time. More so, whenever it is mandated in Section 21B(2) of the said Act that the petition under the said Act shall be tried as expeditiously as possible and such trial should be concluded within six months from the date of service of notice of the petition upon the respondents. Furthermore, Section 21B(1) of the said Act provides that the trial of a matrimonial suit under the Act be continued from day to day until its conclusion 'so far as is practicable consistently with the interests of justice in respect of the trial'. If the adjournment of trial is necessitated, a duty is cast upon the learned Trial Court to record reasons for granting adjournment beyond the following day. If the adjournment of trial is necessitated, a duty is cast upon the learned Trial Court to record reasons for granting adjournment beyond the following day. Such being the position of law, the learned Trial Judge should not bypass those specific provisions of law as engrafted in Section 21 B(1) and (2) through amendment of the said Act and the trial of matrimonial case should not be allowed to linger for a pretty long time in gross violation of the statutory provisions of law as also causing much hardship and embarrassment to the parties involved in the matrimonial suit. More so, whenever the petitioner husband is a Government employee attached to the Irrigation Department at Testa Barrage Division, Tinbatti More within the District Jalpaiguri while the respondent wife is an employee of Judicial Department, Darjeeling District. Their love affairs culminated into solemnization of marriage ultimately on 10.6.90 followed by registration of their marriage on 9.7.1990. 5. IT should be borne in mind that the parties involved in matrimonial dispute remains in perpetual state of unbearable tension. The domestic cordiality is shattered. Peaceful and harmonious conjugal fervour of a marital relationship is evaporated. Mutual respect, trust and understanding stands demolished resulting in total disruption of married life. The matrimonial dispute is, undoubtedly, a calamity. Therefore, the Parliament, in its wisdom introduced Section 21B by Act 68 of 1976 by using expression "shall be tried as expeditiously as possible" and 'conclude trial within six months from the date of service of notice of the petition on the respondent' and further making it expressly clear with the use of poignant and meaningful words "the trial of a petition under this Act..." .... "be continued from day to day until its conclusion unless the Court finds the adjournment of the trial beyond the following day to be necessary for the reasons to be recorded". The language of this specific provision is couched in very explicit terms and is expressive of well-founded legislative anxiety to ameliorate the untold pangs of sufferings of the spouses faced with the insurmountable ordeal of long pending protracted trial. The speeds of 'speedy trial' have, thus been sown. The mandate of legislature is to be followed by the Courts of law. IT is well-settled that a speedy trial is a fundamental right implicit in the guarantee of life and personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The speeds of 'speedy trial' have, thus been sown. The mandate of legislature is to be followed by the Courts of law. IT is well-settled that a speedy trial is a fundamental right implicit in the guarantee of life and personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. There is no doubt that speedy trial is to be guaranteed to the accused in a criminal proceeding. But such endeavour is equally applicable to matrimonial cases. IT is a paramount duty of matrimonial Courts to ensure speedy justice for the estranged couple. 6. IN such trajectory of factual as also legal background, it is highly desirable that their strained matrimonial relationship should come to a logical end through the expeditious disposal of the Matrimonial Suit as also petition under Section 24 of the said Act. Such efficacious steps with utmost expedition would sub-serve the ends of justice as also fully satisfy the essential legal requirement in this regard. For foregoing reasons, I am of the view that if the revisional application is disposed of in terms of the husband/petitioner's prayer seeking direction for speedy disposal of the matrimonial suit and connected Misc. case in her absence, the same would not cause any prejudice to the interest of the respondent opposite party, even though she is not present before this Court. 7. ACCORDINGLY, the learned Additional District Judge, Jalpaiguri, is directed to dispose of the Matrimonial Suit No. 134 of 2007 together with connected Misc. Case No. 20 of 2008 pending before him in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the sides, within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. It is also made clear that observation, if any, made for the purpose of disposal of this revisional application need not be taken into consideration by him. He would proceed to dispose of both the Matrimonial Suit as also Misc. Case on the basis of evidence as may be adduced by both the sides during trial within the specific time frame as indicated hereinabove. 8. THE CO. No. 1633 of 2011 stands disposed of accordingly. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court forthwith for necessary compliance. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis.