SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Ker) 256

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque & C.S. Dias, JJ.
Shiju Joy – Appellant
Versus
Nisha – Respondents
O.P. (FC).No.352 of 2020 and connected cases
Decided on : 23-03-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: A.X. Varghese, Kaleeswaram Raj, A.V. Jojo, Rajesh Sivaramankutty, K. Vijina, Arul Muralidharan, Jaeona James, V.G. Arun, Neeraj Narayan, R. Harikrishnan (Kambisseril), N. Raphy Raj, V. Jaya Ragi, Naveen Radhakrishnan, K.V. Anil Kumar, R.S. Kalkura, Harish Gopinath, M.S. Kalesh, P.S. Appu, S.R. Aneesh, Santhan V. Nair, Christeena P. George, K.V. Anil Kumar, C. Rajendran, B.N. Haskar, Maitreyi Sachidananda Hegde, Thulasi K. Raj, A. Aruna, Varun C. Vijay, Mini Gangadharan, Aswathi S. Kumar, Abraham Samson, Lovely Samson, P.R. Jayakrishnan, R. Reji Kumar, K. Venugopalan Nair, Nirmal V. Nair, G. Akhil Alphonse, Parvathy S. Krishnan, P. Mithun, M. Sreekumar, P. Anjana, Dinesh Mathew J.Muricken, T.N. Manoj, J.G. Syamnath, G. Sreekumar (Chelur), Gyothish Chandran, Binitha James, S. Rekha Kumari, S.Abhilash, R.V. Sreejith, G. Maheswary, Abraham Mathew (Vettoor) & Anil Abey Jose
For the Respondents: V.C. Rajesh, K.J. Gladis, A.K. Arun Chandran, Aparna Sukumaran, Alexander George, V.K. Balachandran, Drishya K. Prakash, R. Muraleekrishnan (Malakkara), K. Siju, M. Anilprasad, Anjana Kannath, S.Seetha, Manoj Ramaswamy, S. Sumeen, J.R. Prem Navaz, R. Sudhish & M. Manju

The main legal principle established in the judgment is the importance of expeditious resolution of matrimonial disputes by Family Courts, in accordance with the purpose of the Family Courts Act, and the need for timely justice and professional management of such disputes.

Headnote:

Family Courts - Delay in Disposal of Cases - Family Courts Act, 1984 - K.A.Abdul Jaleel v. T.A.Shahida ((2003) 4 SCC 166), Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors. ((2015) 6 SCC 353) - The court addressed the inordinate delay in disposal of cases by Family Courts, highlighting the purpose of the Family Courts Act and emphasizing the need for expeditious resolution of matrimonial disputes. The court issued directions to streamline a uniform procedure for the disposal of cases before the Family Courts, emphasizing the importance of timely justice and professional management of matrimonial disputes.

Fact of the Case:

The court was asked to resolve the difficulties caused by the inordinate delay in disposal of cases by the Family Courts in the State, particularly in resolving matrimonial disputes. The petitioners invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court under Art.227 of the Constitution and sought directions to the Family Courts to expeditiously dispose of pending proceedings.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the delay in disposal of cases before the Family Courts was multifaceted, caused by lack of infrastructure, docket explosion, untrained officers and staff, and inept case management. It emphasized the need for Family Courts to deal with conflicts relating to marriage and family affairs with humane consideration and to follow the procedure ordained under the Family Courts Act to help parties resolve their disputes in a harmonious way. The court also highlighted the alarming number of pending cases and the disintegration of family culture in society.

Issues: The issues revolved around the inordinate delay in disposal of cases by Family Courts, the challenges faced by litigants in resolving matrimonial disputes, and the need to streamline a uniform procedure for the disposal of cases before the Family Courts.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the purpose of the Family Courts Act, emphasizing the need for expeditious resolution of matrimonial disputes and the observance of the objects and reasons in establishing Family Courts. The court also considered the observations of the Supreme Court in K.A.Abdul Jaleel v. T.A.Shahida and Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors., highlighting the importance of timely justice and the detrimental effects of delay in adjudication of cases by Family Courts.

Final Decision: The court issued directions to streamline a uniform procedure for the disposal of cases before the Family Courts, emphasizing the importance of timely justice and professional management of matrimonial disputes. The directions included specific steps related to case flow management, counselling, trial listing, execution proceedings, interim orders, recording of oral evidence, video conferencing, consolidation and joint trial, pending matters, Lok Adalaths, advanced hearing, and disposal of cases involving senior citizens.

JUDGMENT :

A. Muhamed Mustaque & C.S. Dias, JJ.

1. We are, in this batch of Original Petitions, asked to resolve the difficulties caused to the litigants due to the inordinate delay in disposal of cases by the Family Courts in the State. These Original Petitions speak about the various hurdles faced by the parties in resolving their matrimonial disputes. The petitioners who are parties to different proceedings, have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Art.227 of the Constitution and sought for directions to the Family Courts to expeditiously dispose of pending proceedings. It was a routine practice in this Court to call for reports from the Family Courts and issue directions to dispose of proceedings in a time bound manner. This has caused perceived injustice to many, as those who approach this Court stand in advantageous position in getting their cases disposed of on a priority basis. The delay involved in disposal of cases before the Family Courts cannot be signified for a singular reason. The problems faced are multifaceted and are of different dimensions. Lack of infrastructure, docket explosion, untrained officers and staff, inept case management etc., are a few to list.

2. The Family Courts are conceived to deal with conflicts relating to marriage and family affairs with humane consideration. The procedure ordained under the enactment is to help the parties to resolve their disputes in a harmonious way in preference to adversarial litigation. Parties are not entitled, as of right, to be represented by a legal practitioner before the Family Courts. The lawyers, who are trained in adversarial litigation, do not want to shed their role as adversarial counsel in matrimonial disputes. The rules and procedures formulated for Family Courts are often forgotten in the process. The objects and reasons in establishing Family Courts, to deal with matrimonial disputes, with informal setting are to break the shackles of rigid rules and procedures followed in civil courts. Many of the Judges as well as lawyers are not really equipped to handle family disputes befitting to the standards required under law, which adds to the cause for the delay.

3. The parties who approach the Family Courts with their grievances, with a hope to get speedy justice, very soon realise that their problems burgeon, cases multiply, and their ordeal unabatedly continues due to the adversarial nature and circumstances surrounding the litigation.

4. The State of Kerala, which accounts for 3% of Country’s population, has one of the highest numbers of matrimonial cases in the Nation. The statistics available with the NJDG gives a clear picture of the story. At present, there is a staggering 104015 cases pending in the 28 Family Courts in the State. This data is alarming and if at all not shocking; it speaks about the disintegration of the family culture and the anomie our society is facing. We had a structured society in the past where everyone held hands to resolve such conflicts. Today, we witness alienation or aloofness of individuals from the larger family, society and the community as a whole. Disputes soar to fierce battles combated through the adversarial litigation. Causes are projected to establish one’s rights sans their obligations, forcing the Family Courts to drift its role as conceived under law and to embark the lines of a normal court.

5. A three-Judge Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in K.A.Abdul Jaleel v. T.A.Shahida ((2003) 4 SCC 166), while highlighting on the purpose of bringing in the Family Courts Act by the legislature, opined thus :

    “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 d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top