Resmi P. vs Anoop R.C., Indu

R. Basant, J.—The petitioner has come to this Court with the prayer that O.P. No. 1330/2008 pending before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapurm filed by her for a declaration of nullity of marriage allegedly solemnised and registered under the Special Marriage Act with the respondent may be declared null and void. That petition was filed on 11/12/2008. It is no-where near the finishing point. It is at this juncture that the petitioner came to this Court with this petition for issue of a direction for an early out of turn expeditious disposal of the said O.P. The petitioner has a further grievance that I.A. No. 1445/2010 filed by her to advance the hearing of O.P. No. 1330/2008 is also not disposed of by the Family Court. This petition is seen dated 20/7/2010 and is filed before the court on 21/7/2010.

We admitted the writ petition and called for the remarks of the learned Judge. We have received the remarks/report dated 29/7/2010 from the learned Judge.

It is not disputed that the petition was filed on 11/12/2008. The matter stood posted to 21/8/2010. Admittedly objections/counter statement has not been filed by the respondent so far. It is true, going by the report of the learned Judge, attempt was made to settle the dispute by reference to the Counsellor/Adalath. But those attempts have been proved to be not productive. It was hence that the case was posted to 21/8/2010, admittedly without any specific directions of what steps are to be taken. We find the grievance of the petitioner to be absolutely justified in the given circumstances. Her prayer that the O.P may be directed to be disposed of appears to be absolutely reasonable and justified. The learned Judge of the Family Court, at the end of his long report, has stated that if given six months time from 03/08/2010, the O.P shall be disposed of on merits. We are satisfied that the said submission can be accepted and directions issued accordingly. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall be satisfied if the said undertaking by the court is complied with.

We have gone through the report of the learned Judge. We must say that the request of the learned Judge that the O.P may be transferred from this Court for the reason that the petitioner has raised ground F in the writ petition is most unnecessary and unjustified. Ground F reads as follows:

F. Even the petitioner filed I.A. No. 1445 of 2010 to advance the original petition No. 1330 of 2008 from 21.8.2010 to near date for early disposal of the case. Even though Ext.P2 I.A has been posted it is being adjourned at the instance of the respondent.

There is no semblance of any personal allegation against the Presiding Officer. We feel that the Presiding Officer has unnecessarily inferred allegations of mala fides against the Presiding Officer. It is true that as per the report of the learned Judge I.A. No. 1445/2010 had been allowed and the case was advanced to 12/7/2010 and from that date the case was posted to 03/08/2010. The petitioner, when he filed this writ petition, has not referred to such advancement of the case to 12/7/2010 and the posting of the case to 03/08/2010. That can certainly be reckoned as an innocent or innocuous omission. May be when this petition was signed on 20/07/2008, the petitioner was not aware of the advancement of the case to 12/7/2010. There is nothing sinister to be inferred from such misstatement/omission to give details in the petition. At any rate, the request for transfer of the case does appear to us to be very unsatisfactory. We do not accept the said request.

This writ petition is, in these circumstances, allowed. We accept the submission of the learned Judge of the Family Court that the matter shall be disposed of by 03/02/2011. Compliance shall be reported to this Court.