A Vs. T

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 6th February, 2018 whereby the learned Family Court closed the petitioner's right to file the written statement.

(2.) The record of the Family Court has been perused. The respondent instituted the petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty in which the notice was issued to the petitioner on 5th July, 2017. The respondent, on receipt of the summons, approached the Supreme Court for transfer of the divorce petition to Ambala in which the Supreme Court issued the notice to the respondent and stayed further proceedings in the divorce petition. The matter was, therefore, kept pending for awaiting the outcome of the transfer petition. However, the transfer petition was dismissed on 1st December, 2017 and the interim stay was vacated. On 3rd January, 2018 the Family Court directed the petitioner to file the written statement within fortnight and the case was fixed for 6th February, 2018. On 6th February, 2018, the petitioner sought further time to file the written statement which was declined and the learned Family Court closed the right to file the written statement and framed the issues. The case was thereafter taken up on 22nd February, 2018, 15th March, 2018, 28th March, 2018, 4th April, 2018, 18th April, 2018, 5th May, 2018 and 9th May, 2018 for counselling.

(3.) This Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 6th February, 2018 passed by the Family Court in closing the right to file the written statement appears to be passed in undue haste. It is matter of record that the proceedings before the Family Court remained stayed by the Supreme Court upto 1st December, 2017 when the transfer petition was dismissed. The matter came up thereafter on 3rd January, 2018 when the Family Court granted just two weeks time and on 6th February, 2018, the Family Court rushed to close the right to file the written statement. After closing the right to file the written statement, the case is just pending for counseling. If case listed for counseling/settlement, this Court is unable to comprehend what was the haste in closing the valuable right to file the written statement. In Telefonaktiebolaget L.M Ericsson v. Lava International Limited, (2016) 226 DLT 342, this Court held that if parties are negotiating settlement during the pendency of a matter, then the Court will condone the delay in filing of written statement due to such settlement talks. The relevant portion of the said judgement is reproduced herein under: