RAJSHREE Vs. PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the respondent No. 1 may be directed to first decide the issue No. 1 regarding jurisdiction and may be prohibited from proceeding with the case on all the three issues simultaneously.

(2.) The marriage of the petitioner with respondent No. 2 was celebrated on 21-2-1985 at Jodhpur. The petitioner and the responderit No. 2 last resided as husband and wife at Jodhpur. Out of this wed-lock a male child was born on 21-2-1985 (sic). Thereafter, they had no marital relation. The respondent No. 2 is working in the U.P. Government Secretariat at Lucknow. It is alleged that in order to snatch dowry in high handed manner the respondent No. 2 tried to avoid the petitioner and' ultimately filed a petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, (1955) before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow. The petitioner was served a summon without any copy of the petition and when the petitioner appeared in person on 28-3-1991 she was supplied with the copy of the petition. On that day, the Principal Judge was on leave and so the case was fixed for 15-5-1991 and on 15-5-1991 the petitioner moved an application for reconciliation. The petitioner could not reach Lucknow on 2-7-1991, therefore, an ex parte order was passed. On that day an application for interim custody of the child was filed by the respondent No. 2 but the same was rejected as not pressed. On the next date i.e. 4-9-1991 the petitioner moved an application for recalling the ex parte order and that application of the petitioner was allowed and the case was fixed for reconciliation on 21-10-1991 as well as for filing the written-statement. However, on 28-8-1992 the following three issues were framed:-

(3.) The case was fixed for hearing on 16-11-1992. The petitioner could not understand the meaning of word 'final hearing' so she requested for its explanation and also requested that since the family court at Lucknow has no jurisdiction, therefore, the issue No. 1 should be decided first. The petitioner was given an understanding by the Judge, Family Court that he will first decide the question of jurisdiction so she will bring all her witnesses to give evidence on issue No. 1 on 16-11-1992. The petitioner having the above understanding and belief reached Lucknow on 16-11-1992 with her witnesses. But the learned Judge started recording of the evidence of the respondent's (husband) witness and recorded the statement of P.W. 1 Jai Narain and P.W. 2 Ganesh Shankar without first recording the statement of respondent (husband) himself. When the petitioner requested that the issue No. 1 may be decided first, the learned Judge disallowed the prayer and ordered verbally that all the three issues will be decided at the time of final hearing and so he will record the statements of respondent No. 2's witnesses on all the three issues and thereafter he will fix the case for petitioner's evidence. The petitioner protested against this but without any result. As the petitioner is ignorant of law because the necessary legal assistance has not been permitted she could not effectively present the case and it is because of this draw back that when the petitioner was all of a sudden asked on 16-11-1992 to cross-examine the witnesses of the respondent (husband) on all the three issues she could not properly conduct the case and she came back with her witnesses. Since the learned Judge has refused to decide the issue No. 1 as a preliminary issue, therefore, the petitioner has been driven to file the present writ petition.