Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2437 (DEL)

Madho Singh Chauhan v. Rita @ Ritu

2015-12-03

VIPIN SANGHI

body2015
ORDER : Vipin Sanghi, J. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India presents a shocking state of affairs existing in the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Courts, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. 2. The petitioner/husband had filed a petition to seek dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the respondent. The said petition was filed on 20.12.2013. The respondent was served with the notice in the said petition on 10.1.2014, as claimed by the petitioner. The returnable date was 26.3.2014. On the said date, the file was received by the Principal Judge, Family Courts from the Court of ADJ (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. However, none appeared for the parties. In consequence, the matter was adjourned to 2.9.2014. The certified copy of the order sheet shows the noting that the respondent had been served. On 2.9.2014, the respondent appeared with her Counsel. Conciliation was carried out. The Court recorded that there are elements of amicable settlement. The matter was adjourned to 12.3.2015 to ascertain the result of Counselling proceedings as well as for filing of written statement. By 12.3.2015, no settlement was reached between the parties. No written statement had been filed by the respondent. The respondent sought further time to file the written statement. This request was opposed by the petitioner. In the meantime, the petitioner had already moved an application under Order 8, Rule 10 , CPC as early as on 5.5.2014. The respondent was burdened with costs of Rs. 1,500/- and the matter was adjourned to 22.5.2015 for filing of written statement. Consequently, the respondent was granted one more opportunity to file the written statement. On 22.5.2015, once again, no written statement was filed and further time was sought by the respondent. Once again, the said request was opposed by the petitioner. However, this opposition was disregarded and further time was granted to file the written statement. The matter was adjourned for nearly five months and the next date was fixed as 5.10.2015. Further costs of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed on the respondent. Once again, the said request was opposed by the petitioner. However, this opposition was disregarded and further time was granted to file the written statement. The matter was adjourned for nearly five months and the next date was fixed as 5.10.2015. Further costs of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed on the respondent. It appears that the petitioner was agitated by the respondent being granted a long rope again and again and his frustration is reflected in the order dated 22.5.2015 as it is recorded that he is in the habit of not behaving properly in the Court and has been advised not to do so. At this stage, this petition has been preferred before this Court. 3. The matter came up before this Court on 30.9.2015. Since the next date before the Family Courts was 5.10.2015, this Court awaited further development in the matter and adjourned the case to 8.10.2015. On 5.10.2015, once again, the respondent was granted another opportunity to file the written statement, subject to payment of further costs of Rs. 3,000/- and the matter was adjourned to 18.1.2016. The application of the petitioner under Order 8 Rules 1 & 10, CPC was not even taken up for consideration. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has tendered in Court a certified copy of the order dated 5.10.2015 along with, inter alia, the reply filed by the respondent to the application under Order 8 Rules 1 & 10, CPC. 5. A perusal of the said reply shows that in the said one page reply, there is absolutely no explanation for non-filing of the written statement all this while. In fact, in the reply, the respondent has not disputed the fact that the respondent was served through ordinary process on 10.1.2014. The only reply given by the respondent is that the petition filed by the petitioner does not disclose legal grounds and that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. These cannot be the grounds for not filing the written statement despite repeated opportunities. In fact, there is no explanation to explain the non-filing of the written statement even till date. 6. This Court is conscious of the fact that the Family Courts are presently heavily burdened with work. These cannot be the grounds for not filing the written statement despite repeated opportunities. In fact, there is no explanation to explain the non-filing of the written statement even till date. 6. This Court is conscious of the fact that the Family Courts are presently heavily burdened with work. However, that cannot be a reason to not devote time and apply mind to cases, which are listed before the Court, such that it results in suffering of injustice by the parties. The petition was filed, as aforesaid, in December 2013. We are now in December 2015. Time has been granted by the Family Courts for filing of written statement now till 18.1.2016. The conduct of proceedings by the Family Court in the present case has, undoubtedly, resulted in failure of justice. The respondent clearly is taking undue advantage of the fact that the Family Court has either been too lenient, or is liard pressed for time to pass effective orders on the petitioner's application under Order 8 Rules 1 & 10, CPC. While repeatedly granting extensions to the respondent to file her written statement, no reasons have been recorded by the Court, as to why such repeated indulgence is being shown despite the petitioner opposing the same. The said orders appear to have been passed most mechanically and demonstrate indifference on the part of the Court to the suffering to which the petitioner is being subjected by the avoidable delay. 7. In view of the consistent default of the respondent in filing her written statement, the application under Order 8 Rules 1 & 10, CPC filed by the petitioner stands allowed. The right of the respondent to file the written statement is closed. At the same time, the petitioner is cautioned to behave himself while appearing before the Court in future. 8. The parties shall appear before the Family Court on the date fixed for further proceedings in the matter. 9. The petition stands disposed of. Application allowed.