MADHO SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. RITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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. 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.