Allahabad High Court
Rahul Kumar Vaidya vs Gudiya on 7 December, 2020
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 66 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3468 of 2020 Petitioner :- Rahul Kumar Vaidya Respondent :- Gudiya Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhai Saxena Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
The petitioner is the father of the two minors for whose custody he has made an application to the learned Principal Judge, Family Court/F.T.C.-II, Rampur under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The application has been styled as one under Section Section 7 of the Act but the petitioner being the natural guardian, his application has to be dealt as one under Section 25 of the Act.
The grievance of the petitioner is that custody proceedings are lingering on, on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court/FTC-II, Rampur. It may be noted that the family matters are sensitive issues and delay in disposing of the same may causes havoc in the parties' life, who are already facing a big turmoil. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Santhini vs. Vijaya Venketesh (2018) 1 SCC 1, where it was remarked in a wider context thus:
"12. The Preamble of the 1984 Act provides for the establishment of Family Courts with a view to promote conciliation in, and secure speedy settlement of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for matters connected therewith.
13. Presently, we may recapitulate how this Court has dealt with the duty and responsibility of the Family Court or a Family Court Judge. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena [Bhuwan Mohan Singh v.Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 321 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 200] , the two-Judge Bench referred to the decision inK.A. Abdul Jaleel v. T.A. Shahida [K.A. Abdul Jaleel v. T.A. Shahida, (2003) 4 SCC 166 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 810] and laid stress on securing speedy settlement of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs. Emphasising on the role of the Family Court Judge, the Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh [Bhuwan Mohan Singh v.Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 321 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 200] expressed its anguish as the proceedings before the Family Court had continued for a considerable length of time in respect of application filed under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Court observed: (Bhuwan Mohan Singh case [Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 321 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 200] , SCC p. 360, para 13) "13. ... It has come to the notice of the Court that on certain occasions the Family Courts have been granting adjournments in a routine manner as a consequence of which both the parties suffer or, on certain occasions, the wife becomes the worst victim. When such a situation occurs, the purpose of the law gets totally atrophied. The Family Judge is expected to be sensitive to the issues, for he is dealing with extremely delicate and sensitive issues pertaining to the marriage and issues ancillary thereto. When we say this, we do not mean that the Family Courts should show undue haste or impatience, but there is a distinction between impatience and to be wisely anxious and conscious about dealing with a situation. A Family Court Judge should remember that the procrastination is the greatest assassin of the lis before it. It not only gives rise to more family problems but also gradually builds unthinkable and Everestine bitterness. It leads to the cold refrigeration of the hidden feelings, if still left. The delineation of the lis by the Family Judge must reveal the awareness and balance. Dilatory tactics by any of the parties has to be sternly dealt with, for the Family Court Judge has to be alive to the fact that the lis before him pertains to emotional fragmentation and delay can feed it to grow."
(emphasis supplied) And again: (SCC p. 360, para 13) "13. ... We hope and trust that the Family Court Judges shall remain alert to this and decide the matters as expeditiously as possible keeping in view the Objects and Reasons of the Act and the scheme of various provisions pertaining to grant of maintenance, divorce, custody of child, property disputes, etc."
14. The said passage makes it quite clear that a Family Court Judge has to be very sensitive to the cause before it and he/she should be conscious about timely delineation and not procrastinate the matter as delay has the potentiality to breed bitterness that eventually corrodes the emotions. The court has been extremely cautious while stating about patience as a needed quality for arriving at a settlement and the need for speedy settlement and, if not possible, proceeding with meaningful adjudication. There must be efforts for reconciliation, but the time spent in the said process has to have its own limitation.
15. In Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan [Shamima Farooquiv. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 274 : (2015) 2 SCC (Cri) 785] , after referring to the earlier decisions, especially the abovequoted passages, the Court expressed: (SCC p. 714, para 13) "13. When the aforesaid anguish was expressed, the predicament was not expected to be removed with any kind of magic. However, the fact remains, these litigations can really corrode the human relationship not only today but will also have the impact for years to come and has the potentiality to take a toll on the society. It occurs either due to the uncontrolled design of the parties or the lethargy and apathy shown by the Judges who man the Family Courts. As far as the first aspect is concerned, it is the duty of the courts to curtail them. There need not be hurry but procrastination should not be manifest, reflecting the attitude of the court. As regards the second facet, it is the duty of the court to have the complete control over the proceeding and not permit the lis to swim the unpredictable grand river of time without knowing when shall it land on the shores or take shelter in a corner tree that stands "still" on some unknown bank of the river. It cannot allow it to sing the song of the brook. "Men may come and men may go, but I go on forever." This would be the greatest tragedy that can happen to the adjudicating system which is required to deal with most sensitive matters between the man and wife or other family members relating to matrimonial and domestic affairs. There has to be a proactive approach in this regard and the said approach should be instilled in the Family Court Judges by the Judicial Academies functioning under the High Courts. For the present, we say no more."
(emphasis supplied)
16. The object of stating this is that the legislative intent, the schematic purpose and the role attributed to the Family Court have to be perceived with a sense of sanctity. The Family Court Judge should neither be a slave to the concept of speedy settlement nor should he be a serf to the proclivity of hurried disposal abandoning the inherent purity of justice dispensation system. The balanced perception is the warrant and that is how the scheme of the 1984 Act has to be understood and appreciated."
In the circumstances, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court/F.T.C.-II, Rampur is directed to decide the pending Misc. Case No. 8 of 2018 Rahul Kumar Vaidya vs. Smt. Gudiya under Section 7/25 of the Guardians and Wards Act as far as possible within a period of six months, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to both parties.
This petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid orders.
Let this order be communicated to the learned Principal Judge, Family Court/F.T.C.-II, Rampur through the learned District Judge, Rampur by the Joint Registrar (Compliance) within 72 hours.
Order Date :- 7.12.2020 Deepak