Harshita G. Gandhi v. Nimit Gandhi

1. This petition was disposed of by the order dated 07.12.2022 appointing Ms.Kiran Nath, learned Principal and Sessions Judge (Retired) as a Local Commissioner to record evidence of the parties in the HMA No. 1070/2020, titled Nimit Gandhi v. Harshita G.Gandhi, pending adjudication before the learned Judge, Family Court-01, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Family Court’). It was further directed that the learned Local Commissioner shall make an endeavour to follow the timelines for recording the evidence, as prescribed in the order dated 02.06.2022 passed by the learned Family Court.

2. I must herein note that the above order was passed as the petitioner herein sought substitution of the learned Local Commissioner being another Retired Learned Additional District Judge appointed by the learned Family Court vide its order dated 02.06.2022. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was, in fact, aggrieved of the appointment of the learned Local Commissioner for recording of the evidence, and had sought recall of the order dated 02.06.2022 passed by the learned Family Court. She submits that the instant petition was filed challenging the order dated 29.10.2022 passed by the learned Family Court by which her application seeking recall of the order dated 02.06.2022 had been rejected.

3. This Court in its order dated 07.12.2022, had observed as under:

4. The order dated 07.12.2022 of this Court in the instant petition was challenged by the petitioner by way of Special Leave Petition, being SLP(C) Diary no.6312/2013. The same was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 21.04.2023.

5. The learned Local Commissioner appointed by this Court vide order dated 07.12.2022, has now addressed an email dated 17.07.2023 to the learned Registrar General of this Court, which reads as under: “Dear Sir, I was appointed as a substitute LC in the aforementioned matter by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 07.12.2022. A whats app group was formed on the directions of the Hon’ble Family Court so as to facilitate the fixing of the dates for recording evidence. However, the respondent has converted that into a portal for airing her grievances against the petitioner, the petitioner counsel as well as the undersigned. This continues despite my repeated requests to maintain the dignity and decorum of the office of the LC who works under the authority of the Ho’nble court. Messages sent by The respondent and unfortunately even her counsel are all disrespectful, insinuating, mocking and alleging bias. It is apparent from the sequence of events that the respondent does not want the recording of evidence to proceed further. 1 have spent more time and effort on adjourning this case than it would have taken to record the evidence. The counsel for the respondent also questions my understanding of law and procedures and is advising me on what to do and how to proceed in the light of their messages. In these circumstances I do not find it fit to continue the proceedings as an LC in this case. I would thus like to recuse myself as the LC in this case from any further proceedings. Please also find attached herewith the screen shots of the messages in the said whats app group for reference. Submitted.”

6. The learned Local Commissioner has also annexed various WhatsApp chats that have been exchanged between the parties, their counsels and the learned Local Commissioner.

7. Clearly, the petitioner herein, who is the respondent before the learned Family Court and referred to as the respondent in the above email, is making a mockery of the Court system by first seeking a substitution of the learned Local Commissioner appointed by the learned Family Court, which was agreed to as a matter of indulgence by this Court vide its order dated 07.12.2022, and now making allegations against the substitute Local Commissioner as well. She appears to be habitually making instigating remarks, not only against the learned Local Commissioner but also against the learned counsel appearing for the respondent herein. This practice needs to be dealt with firmly.

8. Mr.Sunil Mittal, learned senior counsel for the respondent, has also brought to my attention the order dated 09.05.2023 passed by this Court in another petition filed by the petitioner herein, being CM(M) 754/2023, titled as Harshita G Gandhi v. Nimit Gandhi, which, in turn, challenged the order dated 17.04.2023 passed by the learned Family Court. The learned Family Court by the order impugned in the said petition, had rejected the request of the petitioner herein for postponing the date of 18.04.2023 fixed by the learned Local Commissioner for cross-examination of the witnesses of the respondent herein.