Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2525 (DEL)

Puneet Gupta v. Ruchika Gupta

2015-12-09

VIPIN SANGHI

body2015
ORDER : Vipin Sanghi, J. Learned Counsel for the respondent has filed a note of grievances being experienced by litigants in relation to the cases pending before the Family Courts in Delhi. Both Counsel have also advanced their submissions with the idea of addressing the said grievances in a non-adversial manner. 2. Firstly, it is pointed out that the direction issued by this Court on 7.10.2015 with regard to equal distribution of pending and fresh cases between all the Judges holding the Family Courts in every district, has not been implemented yet. 3. Let a reminder be issued to each of the Principal Judge, Family Court in each of the districts and a report be sent by them reporting compliance before the next date. 4. Mr. Kaushik has submitted that the Family Courts are so overburdened that even cases filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA in short) to obtain divorce by mutual consent are not being taken up and the statements of the parties at the first and the second motions stages are not being recorded as and when the petitions are listed. The petitions are being adjourned even for recording the statements at the first motion stage for months together. He has pointed out one instance where he himself was the Counsel in relation to a case filed before the Principal Judge, Family Courts, Shahdara District to obtain divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B being HMA No. 1127/2015 titled Ashok Kumar v. Anu Nagar. In the said matter, which was filed on 7.9.2015, the first listing itself took place on 28.9.2015, i.e. after 20 days. Mr. Kaushik has tendered in Court the order sheet dated 28.9.2015 of the said case, which reads as follows: "HMA No. 1127/2015 Fresh petition received. Be checked and registered. Present: Both the parties with Counsel. Heard learned Counsel. Put up for conciliation/recording of statements on 27.11.2015. (B.R. Kedia) Principal Judge, Family Courts, Shahdara, Karkardooma Delhi" 5. He submits that the same modus operandi is being adopted in other cases since the Courts are overburdened. The suggestion made by Mr. Be checked and registered. Present: Both the parties with Counsel. Heard learned Counsel. Put up for conciliation/recording of statements on 27.11.2015. (B.R. Kedia) Principal Judge, Family Courts, Shahdara, Karkardooma Delhi" 5. He submits that the same modus operandi is being adopted in other cases since the Courts are overburdened. The suggestion made by Mr. Kaushik is that the Family Courts should be allowed to take assistance of Local Commissioners, if they are not able to record the statements of the parties on their own, so that the statements of parties are promptly recorded at least in cases under Section 13-B of the HMA, and after the statements are recorded, the matters could be placed before the concerned Family Court. 6. In my view, this step would reduce the burden on the Family Courts and they would be able to devote time for dealing with all other kind of cases, including contested cases. 7. Accordingly, I direct that each of the District Judges shall nominate, on a weekly basis, one Civil Judge as a Local Commissioner, who may be called upon to record the solemn statements of the parties in proceedings under Section 13-B of the HMA. 8. In the event, the concerned Family Court is not in a position to record the statement of the parties in proceedings under Section 13-B of the HMA on the same day, the Court shall be at liberty to send the matter for recording of the statements of the parties to the designated Civil Judge/Local Commissioner on the same day, or the following day. If any case is sent to the Civil Judge/Local Commissioner, the statements shall be recorded by the designated Civil Judge/Local Commissioner in the post-lunch session, so that their normal working is not disrupted. 9. After the statements of the parties are recorded, the matters shall be placed before the concerned Family Courts for passing appropriate orders. On the said date, the parties shall also appear before the Family Court concerned for making efforts for conciliation, and/or for recording the satisfaction of the concerned Family Court with regard to the voluntariness of the statements recorded by the Civil Judge/Local Commissioner. The concerned Family Court and the concerned District Judge shall also ensure that adequate public notice is given on the Notice Boards of the concerned Family Courts/District Courts with regard to the particular Court/Local Commissioner being nominated on weekly basis. The concerned Family Court and the concerned District Judge shall also ensure that adequate public notice is given on the Notice Boards of the concerned Family Courts/District Courts with regard to the particular Court/Local Commissioner being nominated on weekly basis. This arrangement may be recalled or modified after its efficacy is tested over a couple of months. 10. Mr. Kaushik further pointed out that there have been instances in the past, and even now there is an instance, where fresh cases are being marked to a Family Court which is lying vacant, on account of there being no incumbent in the said Court, with the result that no orders are being passed in such cases even for issuance of notice to the opposite party. For example, it is pointed out that the Court of the Principal Judge, South-West District is lying vacant. There is only one other Family Court in the said district, which is headed by Sh. P.K. Barathwal, Judge, Family Court. There is fresh filing, in all, of about 15-18 cases in a day in the Family Courts in the said district. Out of them, 5-6 cases are being marked on a daily basis before the Court which is lying vacant. 11. In my view, the marking of cases before a Court, which is lying vacant, is purposeless and the litigant, who has preferred such a case would obviously suffer since his case would not be taken up till the vacancy in the concerned Family Court is filled up. I, therefore, direct that fresh cases filed in whichever Family Court, should be taken up by the concerned incumbent Family Court, even if, for the sake of even distribution of cases, the same may have been marked to a Court which is not having an incumbent Judge. 12. It is also pointed out by Mr. Kaushik that in respect of the Family Court at Vishwas Nagar, the Principal Judge, Family Court of Shahdara District Sh. B.R. Kedia is holding Court at Karkardooma Courts Complex, whereas Sh. R.P. Pandey, Principal Judge, East District and Sh. A.S. Jayachandra, Principal Judge, North-East District are holding Courts at Vishwas Nagar Court Complex. The filing of petitions, documents, etc. in respect of the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Shahdara District, holding Court at Karkardooma Courts Complex is, however, taking place at the Court Complex at Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara. R.P. Pandey, Principal Judge, East District and Sh. A.S. Jayachandra, Principal Judge, North-East District are holding Courts at Vishwas Nagar Court Complex. The filing of petitions, documents, etc. in respect of the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Shahdara District, holding Court at Karkardooma Courts Complex is, however, taking place at the Court Complex at Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara. It is submitted that the Family Court at Vishwas Nagar is at a distance of about a Kilometre from the Karkardooma Courts Complex, and even for obtaining a certified copy of an order passed in a matter by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Shahdara District, first the permission of the Principal Judge, Family Court at Karkardooma Courts Complex has to be taken and then the application has to be made at Vishwas Nagar, and thereafter, the certified copy has to be collected from the Family Court, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara. 13. On this aspect, I consider it necessary to call for a report from the Registrar General as, in my opinion, it would be appropriate that all the Judges handling Family Courts, and their Court assistants and record in relation to the three Districts, i.e. Shahdara, East and North-East should be under a single roof. Let a copy of this order along with the grievances circulated by Mr. Kaushik be placed before the Registrar General for his response on the aforesaid aspect. 14. This order be communicated to all the District Judges in each of the districts and to the Principal Judge, Family Court and each of the Judges holding Family Courts for compliance. 15. List on 19.1.2016. Ordered accordingly.