KAVITHA Vs. RAKESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is filed under Article, 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Order of ?the Principal Judge, Family Court?, Madras, in I.A. No. 476 of 1992 in O.P. No. 559 of 1992, granting injunction, restraining the petitioner herein from leaving India, till the disposal of the O.P.

(2.) BEFORE setting out the facts of the case relevant for the purpose of this order, it should be pointed out that the Family Court, which has passed the order on 14.8.1992 against the petitioner, has not chosen to give copies of the fair and decretal order to the petitioner, in spite of her filing applications therefore, and impressing the Court upon the urgent need for such copies. It is expressly alleged in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in C.M.P. No. 11364 of 1992, which is an application for dispensing with the production of the fair and decretal orders that the petitioner applied for the certified copies of the fair and decretal orders on 18.8.1992 under Copy Application Nos. 1896 and 1897 of 1992, i.e., one for fair and decretal orders and another for petition and orders thereon, that she was informed that the court will call for stamp papers only on Wednesdays and the Superintendent of Copyists told the petitioner that it would take one month for furnishing the copies and that when the petitioner informed him about the urgency of the matter, she was told that certified copies will be given only according to the order of priority in applications and there was no chance of her getting copies before the expiry of a month.

(3.) A perusal of the reasons given above, will show that none of them is sustainable. The proceeding before the Family Court at Bangalore was not before the learned Judge, whose order is now challenged in this revision petition. But, unfortunately, the learned Judge has devoted two paragraphs of his order to the merits of the case at Bangalore Family Court, as if that proceeding is being heard by him. The learned Judge has made an observation that the proceeding in Bangalore Court has to be transferred to the file of his Court for disposal under S. 21(a) of the Hindu Marriages Act. The learned Judge has overlooked the fact that such transfer could be ordered only by the Supreme Court of India and not either by himself even or by this Court. Hence, the learned Judge went out of bounds in discussing the merits of the case pending before the Family Court at Bangalore.