Court No. - 19
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 954 of 2018 Petitioner :- Sanjeev Gupta Respondent :- Ritu Gupta Counsel for Petitioner :- In Person Counsel for Respondent :- Nitin Gupta
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
On 7 March 2018, this Court called for the explanation from the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad as to why she had not complied with the directions issued by this Court on 22.2.2018 in letter and spirit and why she had overlooked the provisions of Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The relevant part of the order dated 7.3.2018 is extracted below :-
"When the matter is taken up today, the applicant, who is appearing in person, placed on record certified copy of the order sheet, from which it transpires that part of the cross-examination of the petitioner was recorded on 27.2.2018. The matter has been adjourned for 14.3.2018 for recording the remaining cross-examination of the petitioner.
A certified copy of the cross-examination recorded on 27.2.2018 has also been placed on record. A perusal thereof reveals that the petitioner requested the court that his cross-examination be completed on that date itself, as he is without pay and is suffering irreparable loss. However, on account of the fact that court hours was over, as it was 4:00 p.m., the matter was adjourned for recording the remaining cross-examination of the petitioner on 14.3.2018. It is pertinent to mention here that earlier the petitioner has filed a petition before this Court under Article 227 bearing No.557 of 2018 challenging an order, whereby the application filed by the opposite party for recall of order dated 8.12.2017 by which the opportunity to cross-examine the petitioner was closed, was allowed. However, the Court by order dated 2.2.2018, declined to interfere with the said order, but at the same time, directed the court below to ensure that the cross- examination of the petitioner is recorded on the next date, which was stated to be 5.2.2018. While issuing the said direction, the Court also recorded the submission of the petitioner that he is working in Telecom Department and is posted in Assam and is facing acute hardship in coming to Ghaziabad on every date. However, when despite the aforesaid specific order, the cross-examination of the petitioner was not recorded on 5.2.2018, as on that date there was a call from the Bar Association for abstaining from work on account of death of one of their colleagues, the matter was adjourned fixing 22.2.2018, the instant petition has been filed.
It was contended that the order of this Court dated 2.2.2018 is not being complied with by the court below. This Court adjourned the instant matter for 26.2.2018 to find out as to what happens on 22.2.2018. However, on that date again, the matter was adjourned, as there was lawyers' strike, fixing 27.2.2018. As noted above, on 27.2.2018, only part of the cross-examination has been recorded and the matter has been adjourned for 14.3.2018.
Section 21-B of the Act specifically provides that the hearing of a case under the Act shall be continued from day to day until its conclusion unless the court finds the adjournment of the trial beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded. The orders dated 5.2.2018 and 22.2.2018 do not record any reason for adjourning the matter beyond the following day. It is also a matter for consideration whether in view of specific direction by this Court by order dated 2.2.2018, it was justifiable to adjourn the matter on the ground that there was a condolence meeting and again on the ground that there was lawyers' strike and that too beyond the following day. In the circumstances aforesaid, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad, who has passed the orders on 22.2.2018 and 27.2.2018, is directed to submit explanation as to why the order of this Court dated 2.2.2018 is not being followed in letter and spirit and why the provisions of Section 21-B of the Act are being deliberately overlooked. The explanation shall be submitted through District Judge, Ghaziabad well before the next date.
The Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad has submitted her explanation and in nutshell the explanation is that on account of the ensuing Holy vacation and pressure of large number of cases, the case was adjourned on 27.2.2018 for 14.3.2018 i.e., for about two weeks.
The Presiding Officer has also mentioned in the report that on 14.3.2018, the petitioner expressed apprehension about not getting justice from her court and therefore she had transferred the proceedings to Fast Track Court No.2, Ghaziabad. There is also a recital to the said effect in the order dated 14.3.2018. However, the petitioner who is heard in person has denied the said fact. He submitted that he had full faith in the Family Court and his cross examination was also held on the said date in a cordial atmosphere. He was prepared to advance his arguments but the Presiding Officer herself observed that since on a petition filed by him, she has been asked to offer explanation, therefore, she will not hear the matter. Accordingly, she had made an incorrect recital in the order dated 14.3.2018 for creating a ground for transferring proceedings to some other court. He pointed out that as soon as he came to know of the incorrect facts mentioned in the order dated 14.3.2018, he moved an application before the court on the same date disputing the correctness of the facts recorded in the order. The court posted the said application for consideration on the next date but no order was passed thereupon and in pursuance of the earlier order dated 14.3.2018, the matter was placed before the Fast Tract Court, where the hearing was concluded and the matter is posted on 29 March 2018 for judgement.
The explanation furnished is not at all satisfactory, keeping in view the nature of directions issued by this Court on 22.2.2018 whereunder the cross examination was to be recorded on that date itself. If for some reason the matter was adjourned, the matter should have been adjourned to the next day. However, on 5.2.2018, the matter was adjourned to 22.2.2018, on 22.2.2018 to 27.2.2018 and again on 27.2.2018 to 14.3.2018. This Court also has reasonable doubts about the correctness of the facts mentioned by the Family Court in her order dated 14.3.2018. However, since the judgement has already been reserved in the case, therefore, taking a lenient view, no action is recommended but the Presiding Officer is advised to be careful in future in complying with the directions issued by this Court, both in letter and spirit.
Since nothing further survives in the instant matter, the petition stands consigned. The Registrar General shall communicate this order to the concerned Family Court.
Order Date :- 23.3.2018 skv (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)