Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vipin Sanghi, Jasmeet Singh, JJ.
Ajay Dubey – Appellant
Versus
Annapurna – Respondent
MAT.App. (F.C.) 87 of 2021
Decided On : 15-09-2021
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13-B and 13B(1) - Matrimonial Dispute - Territorial jurisdiction territorial jurisdiction of Family Court- seek Divorce by mutual consent - Petition states that petitioners submit Hon ’ble court has jurisdiction to entertain and try this petitioner ”. Petition does not give to court any ground whatsoever on which present court is stated to have jurisdiction. As regards contentions of Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, every petition stands on its own legs. Since both Ld. Counsel are unwilling to amend present petition and present petition, as it stands today, does not tell the court how court has jurisdiction, the court is constrained to dismiss the present petition.
Finding of the court: It is expected to act with due application of mind and without being hypertechnical about matters brought before it. Family Court should have a litigant friendly approach, and function in spirit of helping parties resolve their disputes - Either mutually, or through Courts determination. Court may also note that senior and experienced Judicial Officers are posted as Principal Judges of Family Courts, with the expectation that they will display legal acumen and maturity in dealing with matrimonial and custody disputes - When petition under Section 13B was first entertained, and First Motion was allowed by it. Therefore, it had jurisdiction in matter, and an objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court could not have been raised by anyone - Including by Court, at stage of Second Motion. The order passed by the same Family Court on Petition during First Motion continues to remain on file, and that has not been set aside or recalled. With the passing of the impugned orders, Family Court has, therefore, created an anomaly, inasmuch, as though First Motion in the Petition has been allowed by same Family Court, Second Motion in same Petition has been dismissed, on account of assumed lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Result: Appeal disposed of
JUDGMENT :
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
1. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant states that the respondent is also present with him during the virtual hearing in his office. She has also appeared.
2. The present appeal is directed against the orders dated 08.10.2020 and 19.11.2020 passed by Ms. Ruby Alka Gupta, learned Single Judge, Family Court, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in HMA 1701/2020 jointly preferred by the parties under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to seek Divorce by mutual consent. The impugned orders were passed by the Family Court while dealing with the Second Motion Petition under Section 13B(2). The First Motion Petition under Section 13B(1) had been entertained and allowed by the same Family Court vide order dated 13.12.2019.
3. The two impugned orders read as follows :-
File perused.
As per jurisdiction para noted in the petition, the present court does not have jurisdiction. Ld. Counsel seeks time to move an amendment application.
Matter be listed for further proceedings on 19.11.2020.
19.11.2020
No amendment application has been filed. Sh. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, Ld. Counsel for petitioner no. 2 states that there is no need for amendment application. It is stated that this is a petition of second motion and follows the petition for the first motion and therefore it need not specify how this court has jurisdiction.
The present petition states in para 23 “that the petitioners submit that the Hon’ble court has the jurisdiction to entertain and try this petitioner”. The petition does not give to the court any ground whatsoever on which the present court is stated to have jurisdiction. As regards the contentions of Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, every petition stands on its own legs. Since both the Ld. Counsel are unwilling to amend the present petition and the present petition, as it stands today, does not tell the court how the court has jurisdiction, the court is constrained to dismiss the present petition.
Present petition thus stands dismissed. File be consigned to record room.”
4. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant/Ajay Dubey is residing at House No. 610, Top Floor, G.D. Colony, Mayur Vihar, Phase-3, New Delhi-110096, which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court concerned. He submits that while moving the First Motion Petition, an error had crept in the para relating to the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has shared the First Motion Petition during the hearing of this appeal. The said relevant para of the First Motion Petition, being paragraph No. 21, reads as follows :
6. Learned counsel submits that the Family Court, considering the fact that the appellant is residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the said Family Court, assumed jurisdiction and allowed the First Motion Petition on 13.12.2019. No objection to the territorial jurisdiction was raised – either by the parties, or by the Court.
7. The parties thereafter moved the Second Motion Petition, and the same error crept into the Second Motion Petition, inasmuch, as, with regard to the territorial jurisdiction, it was stated in para 22 as follows :-
8. Learned counsel submits that when the Second Motion Petition was taken up by the Family Court, the Family Court raised a hyper technical
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
