MAULISHA Vs. V. C. MAHESHWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:

(2.) I need not adjudicate this writ application on merits as the parties have amicably resolved the disputes between them. This is a case of matrimonial dispute. With the intervention of this Court, there has been a happy reconciliation between the parties. However, Mr. Trivedi, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicants has a grievance to redress with regard to the approach of the Presiding Officer of the Family Court so far as the case on hand is concerned. Mr. Trivedi submitted that the object of constituting a Family Court is to see that all the matrimonial disputes are decided under the enactment called the "Family Courts Act, 1984. He further submitted that the endeavour on the part of the Family Court should be first to make all possible attempts to see that the parties reconcile rather than put an end to the marriage. He submitted that in cases where children are there, the Family Court should be more concerned to see that the parents reconcile in the interest and welfare of the children. Mr. Trivedi submitted that in the case on hand, he had a very bitter experience while conducting the present matter before the Presiding Officer of the Family Court. According to him, despite requesting the concerned Presiding Officer of the Family Court to adjourn the matter for some time as the parties were very seriously considering to reconcile in the interest of their only son, the Presiding Officer declined to grant time and insisted that the parties should proceed further in accordance with law. According to Mr. Trivedi, this insensitiveness exhibited by the Presiding Officer is something, which, this Court should look into as it is a matter of concern.

(3.) Having heard Mr. Trivedi, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicants, I may only say that the Family Court should definitely make an endeavour to see that the parties reconcile and start living together, more particularly, when children are born in the wedlock. If the parties on their own request the Court concerned to grant them some time so that they may be able to bury their differences, then, in such circumstances, the Court concerned should give them a chance rather than insisting to proceed with the recording of the evidence. I am sure this aspect shall be kept in mind by the respondent No.1 and all other Presiding Officers, as on date, who have been posted in the different Family Courts across the State.