Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1455 (JHR)

Mahendra Prakash Vivek v. Kumari Punam Bharti

2016-10-18

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2016
ORDER : Heard counsel for the petitioner. 2. By the impugned order dated 01.06.2016 passed by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa in M.M. Case No. 81/2015, application of the petitioner/husband for adducing a document i.e. Panchanama has been rejected. 3. Petitioner has filed a matrimonial suit for divorce against the Respondent/wife under section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the grounds of desertion alleging that the Respondent has not been residing with him after 2007. There has not been any consummation thereafter between them. 4. The Respondent, on notice, appeared before the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa and filed written statement on 10.12.2015. Seven witnesses of behalf of the petitioner were adduced and after closure of his evidence, three witnesses of the Respondent including the wife were also examined by 21.04.2016. Petitioner filed a photocopy of Panchnama on 09.03.2016 without service of copy to the other side. No application for exhibiting the document was filed on that day or even thereafter. A petition was filed on 30.04.2016 seeking to exhibit the Panchnama as an exhibit. Evidence of the defendant was closed on 21.04.2016. The Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa took note of these facts and conduct of the petitioner and found no explanation on the part of the petitioner for the delay in seeking exhibition of the document at that stage. No reasons were furnished on the part of the petitioner in failing to file or exhibit the document at the time evidence of the petitioner/husband was going on the application for adducing evidence was accordingly rejected by the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WPC No. 6928/2012 dated 16.04.2013 [Md. Ghulam Ali & Another vs. Md. Suleman & Others] and WPC No. 4784/2010 dated 28.04.2011 [Parmeshwar Rana & others vs. Dwarika Rana] in support of his case. Perusal of the judgment cited however show that they do not relate to matrimonial suit. 6. The Family Courts Act, 1984 and Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 under which a petition for dissolution of marriage has been presented by the petitioner, both envisage expeditious disposal of matrimonial matters. Perusal of the judgment cited however show that they do not relate to matrimonial suit. 6. The Family Courts Act, 1984 and Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 under which a petition for dissolution of marriage has been presented by the petitioner, both envisage expeditious disposal of matrimonial matters. Under section 21(b)(2) OF Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Family Court is under an obligation to try the matter 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. Sub Section 3 thereof also casts a duty upon the Appellate Court to hear the appeal expeditiously and endeavour to conclude the hearing within three months from the date of service of notice of appeal on the Respondent. The Family Courts (Jharkhand High Court) Rules, 2004 framed under the provisions of Family Courts Act. 1984 also prescribe a time limit of three months for expeditious disposal of such matrimonial matters by the Court concerned. The reason behind such a provision, cannot be lost sight of. The Legislature felt it necessary in the public interest to establish Family Courts for speedy settlement of family disputes, as provisions under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended in 1976, also did not lead to expeditious disposal of Family Court matters, which has to be addressed with an approach different from the adversary approach which generally prevails in regular suit being decided in the Subordinate Courts. The Law Commission in its 59th Report (1974) had also stressed that in dealing with disputes concerning the family, the Court ought to adopt an approach radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings and that it should make reasonable efforts at settlement before the commencement of trial. 7. The Apex Court has also time and again insisted upon the matters relating to matrimonial matters being decided in an expeditious manner. [See: (2015) 6 SCC 353 [: 2014(3) JLJR (SC)400] (Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena & others] and [ (2014) 14 SCC 452 (Nagendrappa Natikar vs. Neelamma]. Long pendency of matrimonial matters affects not only the spouses, but children as well as their family members. The approach of the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa in such circumstances therefore, cannot be faulted on any count. Long pendency of matrimonial matters affects not only the spouses, but children as well as their family members. The approach of the Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Garhwa in such circumstances therefore, cannot be faulted on any count. There is no error of jurisdiction committed which warrants interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the impugned order. 8. It is also informed by the counsel for the petitioner that after closure of evidence, argument of the parties were at an advance stage and may have been concluded by now. 9. In the totality of the facts and circumstances therefore, and reasons discussed herein-above, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.