Courts need to be practical while dealing with matrimonial litigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Chandigarh, December 9

Matrimonial dispute relating to the human relationship eventually affect not only the families, but society as well — the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted, while making it clear that the courts below are required to be more practical while dealing with such litigation.

“In matrimonial litigation, the dispute is primarily relating to the human relationship, which ultimately not only affects the two families, but society at large as well. Thus, the standard of strict applicability of the procedure needs to be avoided. Instead of adopting hyper-technical approach, the courts are required to be more practical while dealing with such kind of litigation,” Justice Harkesh Manuja of the High Court asserted.

Avoid strict applicability

In matrimonial litigation, the dispute is primarily relating to the human relationship, which ultimately not only affects the two families, but society at large as well. Thus, the standard of strict applicability of the procedure needs to be avoided. —Justice Harkesh Manuja

The case has its genesis in an order passed by a principal judge of a family court on October 1 this year, whereby the petitioner-wife’s defence was ordered to be struck off. Justice Manuja’s Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that the respondent-husband had filed a petition under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking a decree of divorce against the petitioner-wife on the ground of cruelty.

The petitioner-wife upon notice appeared before the family court on April 26 and sought time for the filing of a written statement to the divorce petition and a reply to an application for granting the minor child’s interim custody.

She sought further time on the next date of hearing. But the same could not be done. The court on the subsequent date fixed ordered her defence to be struck off. Her counsel submitted sufficient opportunity was not granted to the petitioner-wife. In the absence of the same, she would not be able to contest her substantial rights involved in the divorce petition, including those pertaining to the minor’s custody.

After going through the interim orders attached along with the revision petition, Justice Manuja asserted one could see that the petitioner-wife was never afforded sufficient and adequate opportunity to file her written statement.

Justice Manuja added that non-granting of adequate and sufficient opportunity to the petitioner-wife for filing her written statement would cause substantial prejudice to her rights, involving matrimonial dispute, including the minor’s custody.

Setting aside the impugned order dated October 1, Justice Manuja allowed the revision petition by granting one effective opportunity to petitioner-wife to file her written statement and reply to the application.