Meeta Sachdeva v. Asfflshbharti

1. This is a transfer application filed by the petitioner for transfer of HMA No.383/2013 filed under Section 13(1)(i), 13(1)(ia)and 13(i)(v)of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty, jfrom the family court of Smt. Bimla Kumari to any other family Judge, Rohini.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the record.

3. On 19.02.2015 the following order was passed with the consent ofthe parties in CM(M)No.94/2015:- "1. With the consentoftheparties,thepresentpetition is disposed ofwith the.direction to the learnedFamilyJudge to dispose ofthe application under Section 26 ofthe Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as wellas the application underSection 24oftheHindu Marriage Act, 1955 as expeditiously as possible and preferably before 15.04.2015. 2016:DHC:9194

2. I have been informed that the learned Family Judge has already heard the arguments on behalfofthe petitioner on the application under Section 26 ofthe Domestic Violence Act, 2005 andthe matter is nowfixedon 17.03.2015for arguments on behalf ofthe respondent.

3. So far as the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is concerned, the learned counselfor the respondent seeks further a week's time to obtain requisite informationfor thepurpose offiling an affidavit with regard to the assets and income ofthe respondent, who is stationed in Dubai. The said affidavit shall befiled by the respondent in the Family Court instead ofthis court with an advance copy to thepetitioner who mayfile response thereto within a week thereafter.

4. The respondent shall be at liberty to refute any information furnished by thepetitioner byfiling an additional affidavit in case there is a needfor thesame.

5. With these directions, thepetition stands disposed of.

6. The trial courtrecord be sent back.

7. A copy ofthe order begiven dastito thelearnedcounselfor the parties."

4. Perusal ofthe order wouldshow thatthere wasa specific direction that the application under Section 26ofthe Protection ofWomenfrom Domestic Violence Act,2005 and Section 24 ofthe Hindu Marriage Act 1955 should be decided by the learned family judge, as expeditiously as possible and preferably before 15.04.2015.

5. It has been brought to the notice of this court that both these applications are still pending adjudication. Tthe learned senior counsel for the petitioner Ms.Rajkotia has stated that these application have not been decided on accountofthe factthatthe learned presiding officer wason leave on as many as four occasions,apartfrom the factthatthe family courthas a IM very high pendency.

6. Ms. Beenashaw N. Soni, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently contested the same and contended thatthere has been absolutely no delay onthe partofthe respondentin disposal ofthese applications onthe contrary the applications could not be decided by the learned presiding officer interms ofthe order dated 19.02.2015,because the petitioner kept on filing fresh applications,one ofwhich,included the return ofthe passport to the petitioner of her two daughters, so as to enable her to travel to India, because ofwhich these two applications got relegated to the background. It has also been stated that learned Family Judge has also recorded the reasons for not being in a position to dispose of the application with regard to fixation of maintenance under Section 24 for want of rejoinder to the affidavit ofthe respondent with regard to his income.

7. Be that as it may, the fact of the matter remains that there are allegations and counter allegations from both sides, which are not necessary to be gone into for determination as to what were the reasons for nondisposal ofboth these applications,it was essentiallyfor the learned Judge to have followed the orders ofthis court, both in letter and spirit and taken up the matter in its proper perspective to dispose of the applications as expeditiously as possible in terms ofthe order dated 19.02.2015. Having failed to do so,I feel by simply going into the reasons, which have resulted in non-disposal ofthese application, will not serve any purpose. Therefore, the interest ofjustice in my opinion would be better subserved in case the present matter is transferred to another family judge located in the same District Court Complex.

8. I have been informed that iii addition to Ms.Bimla Kumari,Family Judge,there are three more familyjudges at Rohini District Courts,though in different districts. I feel the interest ofjustice would require in case the matter is transferred from the court ofSmt.Bimla Kumari,Family Judge to the court of Mr. Girish Kathpalia,Family Judge,in order to decide all the pending applications including the applications under Section under Section 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Section 24 ofthe Hindu Marriage Act,1955 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within aperiod ofsix weeksfromtoday.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent has stated that she has already filed an application for grant ofvisitation rights to the respondent/father in respect of two minor children, who have been brought to India by the petitioner,with the clear understandingthatthey wouldbe returning backto Dubai, where they were ordinarily residing. It has been stated since the petitioner and the children have not gone back to Dubai, therefore, the respondent has been deprived ofhis visitation rights. Advance copy ofthe application has also been served on the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assured that the reply will be filed before the next date of hearing, so as to enable the court to decide that application also. It is expected that the learned Family Judge will also endeavour to decide the aforesaid application for grant of visitation rights along withtheother applicationspending,asexpeditiouslyaspossible.