1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

WRIT PETITION (227) No. 771 of 2018

1. Nimish S. Agrawal, S/o Sunil Agrawal, aged about 37 years, R/o 1/45,
Motilal Nehru Nagar (East) Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.)
—- Petitioner/ Plaintiff

Versus

1. Ruhi Agrawal, W/o Nimish Agrawal, D/o Vijay Agrawal, aged about 33 years,
R/o Deepak Nagar, Road No. 3, Durg, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.)

2. Ku. Nirvana Nimish Rai, D/o Nimish Agrawal, aged about 6½ years, Minor
through her natural guardian, Ruhi Agrawal, W/o Nimish Agrawal, D/o Vijay
Agrawal, aged about 33 years, R/o Deepak Nagar, Road No. 3, Durg, Tahsil
and District Durg (C.G.) —- Respondents / Defendants

For Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

Order On Board

07/09/18

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application filed by

the petitioner / plaintiff under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act,

1890 before the Family Court, Durg for custody of his son is pending

consideration since 05.12.2016 and there is no substantial progress in the

trial and even the issues have not been framed till date and further submits

pendancy for such a long time runs contrary to the principles of law laid

down by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena

and Others1.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner / plaintiff.

3. True it is that the matter is pending consideration since 05.12.2016

and the Supreme Court in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh (supra) has
1 (2015) 6 SCC 353
2

held in paragraph 12 13 as under :-

“12. The Family Courts have been established for
adopting and facilitating the conciliation procedure and to deal
with family disputes in a speedy and expeditious manner. A
three-Judge Bench in K.A. Abdul Jaleel v. T.A. Shahida, while
highlighting on the purpose of bringing in the Family Courts Act
by the legislature, opined thus :

“10. The Family Courts Act was enacted to provide
for the establishment of Family Courts with a view to
promote conciliation in , and secure speedy settlement of,
disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for
matters connected therewith.”

13. The purpose of highlighting this aspect is that in the case at
hand the proceeding before the Family Court was conducted
without being alive to the objects and Reasons of the Act and
the spirit of the provisions under Section 125 of the Code. It is
unfortunate that the case continued for nine years before the
Family Court. It has come to the notice of the Court that on
certain occasions the Family Courts have been granting
adjournments in a routine manner as a consequence of which
both the parties suffer or, on certain occasions, the wife
becomes the worst victim. When such a situation occurs, the
purpose of the law gets totally atrophied. The Family Judge is
expected to be sensitive to the issues, for he is dealing with
extremely delicate and sensitive issues pertaining to the
marriage and issues ancillary thereto. When we say this, we do
not mean that the Family Courts should show undue haste or
impatience, but there is a distinction between impatience and to
be wisely anxious and conscious about dealing with a situation.
A Family Court Judge should remember that the procrastination
is the greatest assassin of the lis before it. It not only gives rise
to more family problems but also gradually builds unthinkable
and Everestine bitterness. It leads to the cold refrigeration of
the hidden feelings, if still left. The delineation of the lis by the
Family Judge must reveal the awareness and balance. Dilatory
3

tactics by any of the parties has to be sternly dealt with, for the
Family Court Judge has to be alive to the fact that the lis before
him pertains to emotional fragmentation and delay can feed it to
grow. We hope and trust that the Family Court Judges shall
remain alert to this and decide the matters as expeditiously as
possible keeping in view the objects and Reasons of the Act
and the scheme of various provisions pertaining to grant of
maintenance, divorce, custody of child, property disputes, etc.”

4. It is a matter of concern that despite the mandate of the Supreme

Court in the case of K.A. Abdul Jaleel (supra) and also in Bhuwan Mohan

Singh (supra), the Family Court, Durg has not taken note of it and has not

taken steps to decide the dispute with regard to the custody of the child

expeditiously. The Family Court cannot go on adjourning the case by

granting repeated adjournments but should have taken steps to expedite the

hearing of the suit pending since 5.12.2016 keeping in view that the father

has claimed the custody of his son.

5. Be that as it may, the Family Court, Durg is directed to conclude the

trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of

receipt of copy of this order on its own merit and in accordance with law.

6. Needless to say that all the Family Courts should also dispose of the

family disputes as directed by the Supreme Court in the case of K.A. Abdul

Jaleel (supra) and Bhuwan Mohan Singh (supra) expeditiously and to ensure

that these disputes are finalized quickly without unnecessary adjournments.

7. The Additional Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a copy of this

order to the Family Courts of the State for expeditious disposal of the family /

matrimonial disputes expeditiously in light of the mandate issued by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in above stated judgments. AR(J) is further directed
4

to call for the report from each of the family Courts about the family /

matrimonial disputes pending for more than a year and place it for

consideration by separately registering MCC on 08.10.2018.

Certified copy, as per rules.

Sd/-

(Sanjay K. Agrawal)
Judge

Priyanka