R M PERIASAMY ALIAS RAJA Vs. MADUMATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE allegations in paragraph 9 of the affidavit filed in support of the transfer petition would go to show that the presiding officer has received a report from her staff, with reference to the truth of adultery. This is not denied by the respondent. Such a procedure is very strange.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the respondent points out that as per Section 10(3) of the Family Courts Act 1984, the family court is permitted to lay down its own procedure with a view to arrive at a settlement or arrive at truth of facts. The subsection contemplates laying down a procedure which has to be followed in all cases. It does not mean that the court can lay down sub -rules and procedure for each and every case. The learned Counsel for the respondent is not in a position to assert that the procedure adopted by the family court is pursuant to such a procedure already laid down by the court as a general guidance for the disposal of the family matters. Therefore, in my view, the evidence collected cannot be admitted as evidence since the evidence collected through the officer of the court will be given more weight than the evidence likely to be let in by the other party. Some prejudice is likely to be caused to the other party in the procedure adopted by the family court. Hence, in the interest of justice to all the parties concerned, the matter has to be transferred to some other court.