SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mala Singh Chawla vs Rahul Chawla on 6 February, 2019

$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Order: 06.02.2019

+ Tr. P. (C) No.231/2018

MALA SINGH CHAWLA ….. Petitioner
Through: Ms. Malavika Rajkotia, Ms. Arpita
Rai, Ms. Rytim Vohra Mr.Aashman
Talwar, Advocates.
Versus

RAHUL CHAWLA ….Respondent

Through: Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Pranav Vashishtha Ms. Dolly
Warikoo, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL

C.M. No.5836/2019 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application is disposed of.

Tr. P. (C) No.231/2018 C.M. No.5835/2019 (for stay of the
proceedings)

1. The petitioner seeks transfer of her divorce petition being HMA
No.957/2018 and another guardianship petition filed by her
husband/respondent being GP No.21/2018 from the court of
Ms.Madhu Jain, learned Family Judge, South-East District, Saket

Tr.P. (C) No.231/2018 Page 1 of 6
Courts, New Delhi to the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, South
District, New Delhi.

2. On 21.12.2018, this court had issued notice to the respondent
for 18.02.2019. The file is taken up today as the petitioner seeks stay
of the proceedings before the trial court.

3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned senior counsel for the respondent, I propose to hear and
decide the transfer petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 23.10.2018,
the learned trial judge expressed her desire not to try the case for some
personal reasons and directed both the parties to appear before the
learned Principal Judge, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi,
on that day at 3 pm. She states that when the learned Principal Judge
took up the matter, he wrongly recorded that both the counsel for the
parties made statement that they have complete faith in the court and
the case should be tried by the same court. She further states that on
25.10.2018, the learned Principal Judge sent back the matter to be tried
by the same court as no specific reason of recusal was given by
learned Family Judge and both the learned counsel displayed their
complete faith in the learned Family Judge. She contends that since
the court of Ms. Madhu Jain, the learned Family Judge, has already
recused from the case for personal reasons, the case should not be tried
by the said court and may be transferred to some other court.

5. Learned senior counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes
the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and states that

Tr.P. (C) No.231/2018 Page 2 of 6
Ms.Arpita Rai, Advocate, she herself along with Mr. Pranav
Vashishtha, briefing counsel, were present before the learned Principal
Judge, Family Court and both of them stated that they have complete
faith in the court of Ms. Madhu Jain and expressed their desire that the
case should be tried by the same court. She further submits that sinice
the matter was sent back to the court of Ms. Madhu Jain on
25.10.2018, the learned Family Judge has passed several orders. It is
not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after
receiving back the file from the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
the court of Ms. Madhu Jain, learned Family Judge has been dealing
with the matter and passed many orders after 25.10.2018.

6. The order passed by Ms. Madhu Jain, the learned Family Judge
in HMA No.957/2018 reads as under :-

“HMA No.957/18
23.10.2018

Present: Counsel Ms. Arpita Rai for the petitioner.

Respondent in person with Ms. Geeta Luthra,
Sr. Advocate Shri Pranav Vashisth
Advocate.

Due to some personal reasons, I do not wish to try the
present case. Accordingly, both the parties are directed
to appear before the court of Shri Sanjay Garg-I,
learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, South East
District, Saket New Delhi today itself at 3:00 pm.”

7. The learned Family Judge also passed a similar order in GP
No.21/2018, which reads as under :-

Tr.P. (C) No.231/2018 Page 3 of 6

“GP No.21/18
23.10.2018

Present: Counsel Ms. Arpita Rai for the petitioner.

Respondent in person with Ms. Geeta Luthra,
Sr. Advocate Shri Pranav Vashisth
Advocate.

Due to some personal reasons, I do not wish to try the
present case. Accordingly, both the parties are directed
to appear before the court of Shri Sanjay Garg-I,
learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, South East
District, Saket New Delhi today itself at 3:00 pm.”

8. Both the learned counsel for the parties appeared before the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court in the afternoon when both the
learned counsel expressed complete faith in Ms. Madhu Jain, learned
Judge, Family Courts, South-East District and desired that the case be
tried by the same. However, the learned Principal Judge kept the
matter pending to consider the request of the learned Judge, Family
Court for consideration on 25.10.2018. The order passed by the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court on 23.10.2018 in HMA
No.957/2018 reads as under :-

“HMA No.957/18
23.10.2018

Present: Ms. Arpita Rai, Ld. Counsel for petitioner.

Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ld. Sr. Counsel for
respondent Shri Pranav Vashisth, Ld.
Counsel for respondent.

Tr.P. (C) No.231/2018 Page 4 of 6

Both the Ld. Counsels submit that they have complete
faith in the court of Ms. Madhu Jain, Ld. Judge, Family
Court, South East and wish that this case be tried by
the same court.

Put up for consideration of the request of Ld. Judge,
Family Court and the submissions of Ld. Counsels for
25.10.2018.”

9. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court passed a similar
order in GP No.21/2018, which reads as under :-

“GP No.21/18
23.10.2018

Present: Ms. Arpita Rai, Ld. Counsel for petitioner.

Ms. Geeta Luthra, Ld. Sr. Counsel for
respondent Shri Pranav Vashisth, Ld.
Counsel for respondent.

Both the Ld. Counsels submit that they have complete
faith in the court of Ms. Madhu Jain, Ld. Judge, Family
Court, South East and wish that this case be tried by
the same court.

Put up for consideration of the request of Ld. Judge,
Family Court and the submissions of Ld. Counsels for
25.10.2018.”

10. Since Ms. Madhu Jain, learned Family Judge didn’t assign a
specific reason for recusal, which coupled with the parties’ desire to
have the matter tried by the same court led the learned Principal Judge
on 25.10.2018 to send back the petitions to the court of Ms. Madhu
Jain to try in accordance with law. The view taken by the court of the
learned Principal Judge is completely tenable and sustainable in law.

Tr.P. (C) No.231/2018 Page 5 of 6

11. There is no substance and merit in the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that Ms. Arpita Rai, Advocate has not made
a statement before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court on
23.10.2018. Even no affidavit of Ms. Rai is placed on record in
support of the allegations. It is trite that the judicial orders passed by
the courts carry a presumption of truth. If such statement was not
made on 23.10.2018 by Ms. Rai, she should have brought to the notice
of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court immediately after she
became aware of it. There is no allegation of bias against the learned
Family Judge, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi. Simply
because learned Family Judge recused from the cases, which were sent
back to her by the learned Principal Judge for aforesaid reasons, there
is no justification for transferring the petitions from the court of
Ms.Madhu Jain to any other family court.

12. I do not find any merit in the petition. Accordingly, the transfer
petition along with application, being C.M. No.5835/2019, is
dismissed with no orders as to costs. The next date of hearing, that is,
18.02.2019, stands cancelled.

(VINOD GOEL)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 06, 2019
‘AA’

Tr.P. (C) No.231/2018 Page 6 of 6

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation