Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 666 (RAJ)

Suman Bhaskar v. Surendra Singh Khichar

2016-05-11

ALOK SHARMA

body2016
ORDER Alok Sharma, J. The order under challenge is dated 31.03.2016 as passed by the Family Court, Sikar closing the petitioner-wife's (hereinafter "wife") evidence in the divorce petition laid by the respondent-husband under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter "the Act of 1955") on the ground of cruelty and adultery. 2. A perusal of the impugned order dated 31.03.2016 indicates that the wife was granted eight opportunities for leading her evidence subsequent to the closure of the respondent-husband's (hereinafter "husband") evidence on 02.07.2015. She however failed to avail the opportunities. On 30.01.2016, a ninth opportunity was granted to the wife on cost of L 1,000/- to present her evidence on 8.03.2016. She however failed to do so. Her evidence was then closed. Thereafter an application was moved by her for reopening her evidence and for this she sought to rely upon a departmental order dated 14.06.2015 where she was required to go to Jodhpur for training-having been appointed as a Constable with the Rajasthan Police. The trial court however noted that there was nothing on record to establish that the wife was in training on 08.03.2016 at Jodhpur. It was also noted that the wife had herself presented an affidavit before the trial court on 16.11.2015. Further when the date was fixed for 08.03.2016, it was not stated that she would not be available on the aforesaid date for reasons of being in training at Jodhpur on the said date. The trial court also noted that there were no supporting documents with the application to establish that on 08.3.2016 the wife was at Jodhpur undergoing training. In this view of the matter, the Family Court finding that the wife was merely misusing the Court's earlier indulgences in adjourning the matter, proceeded to close her evidence. 3. Section 13-B(2) of the Act of 1955 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." It is thus evident that the parties before the Family Court, after failure of conciliation proceedings, are expected to cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the petition. Yet the conduct of the wife in the instant case is in the crosshair of the legislative mandate of expedited trials in matrimonial disputes. Yet the conduct of the wife in the instant case is in the crosshair of the legislative mandate of expedited trials in matrimonial disputes. The wife does not appear to care for the law of the land and appears to take the legal processes for granted. The discretion of the Family Court in closing the wife's evidence on 08.03.2016 and dismissal of the application for reopening her evidence under the impugned order dated 31.03.2016 cannot, in the circumstances, be faulted with. 4. Counsel of the wife has however made the routine argument that the petitioner is a woman and she deserves indulgence. The argument has no foundation in law and is merely emotive. Neither the Act of 1955 nor any decided case require undue indulgence to wife/s in matrimonial disputes. The conduct of the wife in the instant case before the Family Court is not deserving of condonation. Aside of the aforesaid, this Court in the exercise of its superintending jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot peremptorily interfere with the orders passed by the courts below in their discretion judicially exercised. Such interference would destroy the authority of the courts below in conducting trials before them. And lead to even more pendency of cases which is the subject matter of incompletely informed public concern and debate. But all same it grabs headlines. 5. Be as it may, again taking a liberal view of the matter largely motivated by the concern that the divorce petition be adjudicated on merits in view of the serious allegation of adultery against the wife, I would allow one last opportunity to the wife to lead her evidence before the Family Court on the next date of hearing in the divorce petition i.e. 16.05.2016 subject to payment of costs of L 10,000/- to the Husband. The matter shall as far as possible not be adjourned on the said date and if required for paucity of time, be taken up on the following working day. In the circumstances, the order dated 08.03.2016 and 31.03.2016 passed by the Family Court are set aside. Failure of the wife to lead her evidence on the said date will entail closure of her evidence again. The Family Court is directed to decide the divorce petition within a period of thirty days following the wife's evidence/s in defence. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Failure of the wife to lead her evidence on the said date will entail closure of her evidence again. The Family Court is directed to decide the divorce petition within a period of thirty days following the wife's evidence/s in defence. 6. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Stay application needs no address in view of the petition itself having been disposed of.