In a bid to ensure the efficient resolution of cases pertaining to marriage and family matters, the Delhi High Court has issued comprehensive guidelines to the family courts in the national capital. The move aims to streamline procedures and curtail unnecessary delays that have plagued the adjudication of such cases in the past.
Brief Facts of the case:
The case involves a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner filed a divorce petition on September 12, 2017, seeking the dissolution of their marriage. The primary contention of the petitioner was that the marriage had irretrievably broken down due to various issues, including incompatibility and differences of opinion. The respondent failed to file a written statement in response to the divorce petition for an extended period of 5 years and 6 months. This delay prompted the petitioner to move the court seeking a decree of divorce based on the respondent's failure to submit a timely written statement.
Observations by the Court:
A division bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna delivered a landmark judgment, emphasizing the urgency of timely resolution in matrimonial cases. Noting the increasing prevalence of prolonged litigation in these matters, the court outlined the imperative of reducing judicial delays and enhancing the efficacy of the justice system.
The issued guidelines provide a roadmap for family court procedures, including crucial timelines for various stages of litigation. Some key provisions are:
1. Issue of Summons: The court mandated that a summons be issued to the defendant upon the initiation of a suit, requiring them to respond within thirty days and file a written statement. The court also delineated conditions under which the summons need not be issued. If a defendant fails to file the written statement within the stipulated timeframe, they can do so within a specific extended period, not exceeding one hundred and twenty days.
2. Inspection and Disclosure of Documents: Parties involved in the proceedings are required to complete the inspection of all disclosed documents within thirty days of filing the written statement. If a party denies inspection or fails to produce documents despite notice, the court will address these matters within thirty days of receiving the relevant application.
3. Admission and Denial of Documents: Each party must submit a statement of admissions or denials for all disclosed documents within fifteen days of inspection completion.
4. Case Management Hearing: The first case management hearing should occur within four weeks of the filing of the affidavit of admission or denial of documents. The court is expected to frame issues, set witness lists, schedule evidence presentation, and allot time for oral arguments.
5. Interim Applications: Any applications related to interim maintenance, custody, or other miscellaneous matters connected to marriage and family affairs are expected to be resolved within ninety days from the date of filing.
6. Judgment and Decree: The court is required to deliver the judgment within thirty days of the conclusion of arguments.
Decision of the Court:
The court acknowledged the petitioner's concerns regarding the prolonged delay in the respondent's submission of a written statement in response to the divorce petition. The court noted that such delays can impede the expeditious resolution of matrimonial disputes and perpetuate the emotional strain on the parties involved.
Given the circumstances, the court upheld the petitioner's plea for a divorce decree based on the respondent's failure to adhere to the prescribed timeframe for filing a written statement. The court found that the delay had contributed to the prolongation of the litigation, adding to the emotional and psychological burden on both parties
Case Name: SMT. K.S. SUMI MOL vs SH. SURESH KUMAR E.K.
Coram: Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Case No.: MAT.APP.(F.C.) 127/2023 & CM APPL. 23305/2023
Advocates of the Petitioners: Mr. Ajeesh Kalathil Gope & Mr. Vineeth S, Advocates with appellant in person.
Advocates of the Respondent: None
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
