- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
S.DIVYA v. P.S.NARAYANAN
Summary of Opinion — C.R.P. (PD) No.1567 of 2021 (10.08.2021)
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner filed this Civil Revision Petition seeking a direction to the learned Family Judge, Salem, to dispose of H.M.O.P.No.587 of 2019 at an early date. The respondent filed H.M.O.P.No.587 of 2019 under Section 13(1)(ia & ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce. The parties had previously executed a Dissolution of Marriage Deed dated 23.12.2018, but no petition for divorce by mutual consent was filed thereafter. The Civil Revision was heard and decided by G. Chandrasekharan, J., on 10.08.2021.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the learned Family Judge, Salem, should be directed to dispose of H.M.O.P.No.587 of 2019 at an early date by a time frame fixed by this Court.
- Whether the learned trial Judge should explore conducting the trial through videoconferencing in accordance with the guidelines in SANTHINI vs. VIJAYA VENKETESH ((2018) 1 SCC 1) and the Madras High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2020.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The respondent has filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia & ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce.
- The parties executed a Dissolution of Marriage Deed dated 23.12.2018 indicating intent to terminate the marriage.
- It is unclear why the parties did not file a petition for divorce by mutual consent after the alleged execution of the Dissolution of Marriage Deed.
- The petitioner sought direction for early disposal of H.M.O.P.No.587 of 2019.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent's legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| SANTHINI vs. VIJAYA VENKETESH reported in (2018) 1 SCC 1 | Guidelines for conducting proceedings through videoconferencing. | The court directed the learned trial Judge to explore conducting the trial through videoconferencing by following these guidelines. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submissions and the materials produced in support of the claim for divorce, including the Dissolution of Marriage Deed. However, the Court recognized the heavy pendency of cases, particularly matrimonial matters, and held that it could not fix a specific time frame for disposal. Balancing these factors, the Court directed the learned Family Judge, Salem, to dispose of H.M.O.P.No.587 of 2019 as early as possible. Given that proceedings are being conducted through videoconferencing, the Court further directed the trial Judge to explore conducting the trial by videoconferencing in accordance with SANTHINI vs. VIJAYA VENKETESH ((2018) 1 SCC 1) and the Madras High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2020.
Holding and Implications
The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly: the learned Family Judge, Salem, is directed to dispose of H.M.O.P.No.587 of 2019 as early as possible.
Consequences and immediate effects:
- The trial court is directed to expedite disposal of H.M.O.P.No.587 of 2019, but no specific timeframe was fixed due to heavy case pendency.
- The trial Judge is directed to explore conducting the trial via videoconferencing following the cited Supreme Court authority and the Madras High Court rules.
- There is no order as to costs.
- The opinion does not purport to set any new legal precedent beyond directing adherence to existing videoconferencing guidelines.
This Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking direction to the learned Family Judge, Salem, to dispose of H.M.O.P.No.587 of 2019 at an early date to be fixed by this Court. /
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the respondent has filed the petition under Section 13(1)(ia & ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking divorce from the petitioner. In fact, the parties had entered Dissolution of Marriage Deed dated 23.12.2018. But some reason or other, there was no reconciliation to file this petition for divorce by mutual consent. However, this document makes it clear that, the parties intended to terminate their marriage. It is not known why the parties have not chosen to file petition for divorce by mutual consent after alleged execution of the Dissolution of Marriage Deed dated 23.12.2018.
3. With regard to the claim that the learned Family Judge, Salem, to be directed to dispose of H.M.O.P.No.587 of 2019, within the time frame to be fixed by this Court, this Court is of the considered view that, due to heavy pendency of cases, especially the matters related to marital dispute, no time frame can be fixed. However, considering the reasons stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, materials produced in support of the claim of the divorce, this Court directs the learned Family Judge, Salem, to dispose of H.M.O.P.No.587 of 2019, as early as possible. /
4. Now that, the proceedings are being held through videoconferencing, the learned trial Judge, is also directed to explore the possibility of conducting trial through videoconferencing by following the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SANTHINI vs. VIJAYA VENKETESH reported in (2018) 1 SCC 1 and the Madras High Court Video Conferencing Rules, 2020.
5. This Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly. However, there is no order as to costs. 10.08.2021 Speaking order / Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No The Family Judge, Salem. / G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J. C.R.P. (PD) No.1567 of 2021 10.08.2021 /
Alert