STATE Vs. BILAL RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are three Criminal (Misc.) Main No. 513 to 515 of 1984, moved by Sudhir Bala for transfer of three cases all present pending in the court of Sh. Babu Lal Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi Earlier her application for such, transfer were rejected by the Sessions Judge. It is contended that one of the cases which is under Section 394 I.P.C. and has been initiated by the State is pending from 1979. and the other two under Sections 406 and 500 I.P.C. have hanged on from 1981. The trial court, however, has not been disposing them of expeditiously and allowing frequent and long adjournments. This has been inspite of the fact that earlier, Anand, J. by an order dated 30-11-1983 had directed the disposal of the cases as expeditiously as possible. One particular instance has been cited of the petitioner's old parents having attended the court for as many as 8 hearings, having travelled from Gurgaon. but their evidence was not recorded. Even for cross examination of the witnesses. adjournments it is pointed, are being allowed. The petitioner at present is stated to be employed in Gurgaon, and has to very often take leave from her job and after- incurring substantial expenses. attend the court.

(2.) THE background of the facts given is that the petitioner was married to Respondent No. 1, April, 1979 but just after a month she was turned out of her matrimonial home because she could not meet the dowry demands. Moreover. whatever she had brought her parents was retained by her husband and his parents who are impleaded as respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Thereafter respondent No. 1 filed a divorce petition but the same was dismissed The petitioner's counter-petition for divorce$' however was later allowed on 27/3/1981. From these circumstances is sought to be urged that the blame for wreking the matrimonial union thus lay with the respondents. The respondents on their part have controverted the allegations made against them. The same, of course, will receive adjudication in due course during the trial.

(3.) IN a matrimonial matter where sensitivities of the parties are deeply involved, every attempt should be made to dispose of the cases as expeditiously as possible. Anand, J. had already made directions in this regard. Moreover, the petitioner being a young, woman, is working at Gurgaon, and frequent attendance in court naturally is likely to affect her duties apart from being expensive The trial court should weigh these considerations, and, therefore, expedite decisions. It should be impressed upon both the sides to be present promptly on the dates fixed for hearings. No possible impression should be allowed to be created by conduct or gestures of not being favourably inclined to one party or the other. Judicial balance not only should be reflected in the orders made, but should Set displayed in the attitude and conduct of cases in court. No particular order which car. bring out prejudice or disfavourable dispossession has been brought out and I have no reason to take it that the trial court did not adhere to this desired course of conduct in court either The trial court has mentioned that in most of the case adjournments for recording of evidence are given to the extent of over six months. In the present casts, they have been shorter extending to two or three months. They should be curtailed further if possible as such like casts arising from matrimonial disputes need to be disposed of early.