Ms. Shivani Lal, Mr. Hiren Dasan, Mr. Ajay Sharma, Ms. Gulshan Jahan, Ms. Tannu Mittal v. Nishka Sharma & Anr

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM APPL.48109/2025 (Exemption)

2. The application stands disposed of.

3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following prayer: “Issue a writ of mandamus in order to implement Clause-2 of Office Order No. 15/D-3/Gaz.IA/DHC/2025 dated 30.05.2025 issued by the Ld. Registrar General of this Hon’ble Court with consequential direction that HMA NO. 100/2019 titled as “Neeraj Sharma Vs Nishka Sharma” pending before the Court of Ld. Presiding Officer, Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, be decided by Shri Harish Kumar, Ld. Additional District and Sessions Judge, presently holding charge as In-charge, Mediation Centre, South-West, Dwarka.”

4. The aforesaid case bearing HMA No. 100/2019 was filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that the proceedings in the said case were protracted for a sufficiently long period of time. Finally, vide order dated 17.05.2025 passed by the Court of Ld. Judge, Family Court, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, it was noted that the arguments stand concluded.

5. Thereafter, an order dated 30.05.2025 was passed by the concerned Judicial Officer which reads as under:-

6. On 30.05.2025 itself, the Office Order No. 15/D-3/Gaz.IA/DHC/2025 dated 30.05.2025 was issued whereby the learned Judicial Officer (Shri Harish Kumar) was transferred as In-Charge, Mediation Centre, South-West, Dwarka.

7. In the above background, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking that in terms of Clause-2 of the Office Order No. 15/D- 3/Gaz.IA/DHC/2025 dated 30.05.2025 the concerned Judicial Officer (Shri Harish Kumar) before whom proceedings in the aforesaid HMA NO. 100/2019 took place from 18.10.2022 till 30.05.2025 be requested to decide the matter and pronounce the verdict.

8. Specific attention is drawn to Clause-2 of the aforesaid Office Order No. 15/D-3/Gaz.IA/DHC/2025 dated 30.05.2025 which reads as under:-

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of “B.D. Sharma versus State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. 2025:DHC:5607” wherein it has observed as under:-

10. In the present case, it is evident that the arguments in HMA NO. 100/2019 have been substantially concluded before the concerned Judicial Officer (Shri Harish Kumar) who was seized of the proceedings from 18.10.2022 till 30.05.2025. As apparent from the order dated 30.05.2025 pronouncement of judgment was only deferred since the concerned Judicial Officer thought it necessary to obtain certain clarifications while preparing for the judgment.

11. Prima facie, in the circumstances, Clause-2 of the Office Order NO. 15/D-3/Gaz.IA/DHC/2025 dated 30.05.2025 would be applicable. It would, therefore, be open to the concerned Judicial Officer to pronounce the judgment after obtaining the necessary clarifications, unless there are extenuating reasons/ factors which prevent the concerned Judicial Officer from doing so. Indeed, it would be a travesty for the concerned litigants if the transfer of the concerned Judicial Officer impedes pronouncement of the judgment despite substantial conclusion of the proceedings / arguments, over a considerably protracted period of time. The purport of Clause 2 of the Office Order No15/D-3/Gaz.IA/DHC/2025 dated 30.05.2025, is to prevent such situation/s.

12. Since, it is incumbent on the concerned Judicial Officer to act in consonance with Clause-2 of the Office Order No. 15/D- 3/Gaz.IA/DHC/2025 dated 30.05.2025, this Court does not deem it apposite to issue a Writ of Mandamus for the said purpose. Suffice it to say that the concerned Judicial Officer/s are bound to act in consonance with the stipulation incorporated in Clause-2 of the aforesaid Office Order No. 15/D- 3/Gaz.IA/DHC/2025 dated 30.05.2025.

13. The present petition, along with pending application, is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.