2010 Supreme(SC) 250

2010 (2) Supreme 484
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Aftab Alam and Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Smt. Poonam — Petitioner
versus
Sumit Tanwar — Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 86 of 2010
Decided on : 22-03-2010

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. In case, the counsel for the party is not able to render any assistance, the Court may decline to entertain the petition.
2. The citizens are entitled to appropriate relief under provisions of Article 32 of Constitution, provided it is shown to the satisfaction of Court that Fundamental Right of petitioner had been violated.
3. Judicial orders passed by the Court in or in relation to proceeding pending before it are not amenable to be corrected by issuing a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Headnote:Constitution of India,1950- Article 32 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Section 13-B(2)- Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of Constitution of India for awarding decree of divorce, annulling marriage of the parties and/or issue directions waiving statutory period of six months provided under Section 13-B(2) of Act of 1955-The citizens are entitled to appropriate relief under provisions of Article 32 of Constitution, provided it is shown to the satisfaction of Court that Fundamental Right of petitioner had been violated- In the instant case, Family Court, Delhi had passed an order strictly in accordance with law asking the parties to wait for statutory period of six months to file the second motion in the case- In such a fact-situation, it was not permissible to suggest that said order had violated or infringed any of the fundamental rights or any legal right of parties-Hence held incomprehensible as to under what circumstances, writ was maintainable- Apart from that counsel appearing for petitioner unable to explain under what circumstances, petition had been filed and as to whether such a petition was maintainable or whether relief of dissolution of marriage could be sought by the parties directly from Apex Court in a case, wherein the marriage had taken place only a year and three months ago- The counsel was not able even to explain that even if the Court considers to issue the writ, to whom it would be issued as the only parties in the case were wife and husband, who were seeking divorce by consent- Counsel was not able to enlighten Court as to whether the Family Court could be impleaded in this petition- He expressed his inability to answer any question- In absence of proper assistance to the Court by the lawyer, there is no obligation on part of the Court to decide the case, for the simple reason that unless the lawyer renders the proper assistance to the Court, the Court is not able to decide the case- It is not for the Court itself to decide controversy-It is not for the Court itself to find out what the points for determination can be and then proceed to give a decision on those points- No case that there had been any delay in disposal of the case by the Family Court- The petition had been filed without any sense of responsibility either by parties or their counsel. - Petition held liable to be dismissed. (Paras 10, 11, 20)

        Constitution of India,1950- Article 32 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Section 13-B(2)- Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of Constitution of India for awarding decree of divorce, annulling marriage of the parties and/or issue directions waiving statutory period of six months provided under Section 13-B(2) of Act of 1955-Maintainability of -It is settled legal proposition that the remedy of a person aggrieved by the decision of the competent judicial Tribunal is to approach for redress a superior Tribunal, if there is any, and that order cannot be circumvented by resorting to an application for a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution- Relief under Article 32 can be for enforcing a right conferred by Part III of the Constitution and only on the proof of infringement thereof-If by adjudication by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the right claimed has been negatived, a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is not maintainable- It is not generally assumed that a judicial decision pronounced by a Court may violate the Fundamental Right of a party- Judicial orders passed by the Court in or in relation to proceeding pending before it are not amenable to be corrected by issuing a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution. (Para 9)

       Facts of the Case :

        Present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 32 of Constitution of India for awarding decree of divorce, annulling marriage of the parties and/or issue directions waiving statutory period of six months provided under Section 13-B(2) of Act of 1955.

       Findings of the Court :

        The citizens are entitled to appropriate relief under provisions of Article 32 of Constitution, provided it is shown to the satisfaction of Court that Fundamental Right of petitioner had been violated. In the instant case, Family Court, Delhi had passed an order strictly in accordance with law asking the parties to wait for statutory period of six months to file the second motion in the case. In such a fact-situation, it was not permissible to suggest that said order had violated or infringed any of the fundamental rights or any legal right of parties. Hence it was held incomprehensible as to under what circumstances, writ was maintainable. Apart from that counsel appearing for petitioner unable to explain under what circumstances, petition had been filed and as to whether such a petition was maintainable or whether relief of dissolution of marriage could be sought by the parties directly from Apex Court in a case, wherein the marriage had taken place only a year and three months ago. The counsel was not able even to explain that even if the Court considers to issue the writ, to whom it would be issued as the only parties in the case were wife and husband, who were seeking divorce by consent. Counsel was not able to enlighten Court as to whether the Family Court could be impleaded in this petition. He expressed his inability to answer any question. In absence of proper assistance to the Court by the lawyer, there is no obligation on part of the Court to decide the case, for the simple reason that unless the lawyer renders the proper assistance to the Court, the Court is not able to decide the case. It is not for the Court itself to decide controversy. It is not for the Court itself to find out what the points for determination can be and then proceed to give a decision on those points. No case that there had been any delay in disposal of the case by the Family Court. The petition had been filed without any sense of responsibility either by parties or their counsel. .Hence Petition was held liable to be dismissed.

       Result : Petition dismissed.