Delay In Disposal Of Matrimonial Cases: Madras High Court Suggests Fixing Period Of Limitation For Filing Counter Relief

Justice RMT Teekaa Raman and Justice PB Balaji noted that in the last few years, it had become a trend for parties to file applications seeking counter-relief for divorce petitions or counter-relief of restitution of conjugal rights towards the fag end of the trial thereby delaying the disposal of the case. The court thus suggested a period of limitation of 9 months to 1 year for filing applications for counter relief.

The court thus directed the registry to place the recommendations before the Administrative Side of the High Court for amending the rules under Section 123 of the CPC which empowers the High Court Rule Committee to make rules regarding the limitations governing the field under the Family Court Act.

“We find that certain period of limitation has to be fixed to curb this evil designed practice before the Family Courts which is consuming large hours of the family court and also causing innumerable years of delay in disposal of the Original Petition and hence, we find that the High Court Rules Committee (Civil) shall look into the matter and prescribe a limitation period that, in the event of any application being filed by one of the spouses to the marriage and that summons have been served on the opposite party, shall commence the point of limitation for filing the counter relief namely for the divorce petition / or / counter relief of restitution of conjugal rights and vise versa, to suggest, viz a period of 9 months to 1 year may be fixed, since it has become almost a regular practice before the Family Courts in mofusil areas to file another case between the very same parties seeking the counter relief only at the fag end of the trial of the first proceeding,” the court said.

The court made the directions in an appeal filed by the husband against the decision of the Family Court, Tiruchirappalli, allowing the petition filed by the wife and granting a divorce. The Family judge had observed that there was an irretrievable breakdown of marriage and the husband had committed cruelty by filing complaints against the wife, who was a judicial officer.

During the appeal, the husband contended that he had not committed cruelty and that an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage could not be a ground for granting a divorce.

The wife argued that the husband had suppressed his educational qualifications and had subjected her to cruelty and harassment. She further submitted that even her mother and wife were assaulted by the husband and his family and were intimidated on numerous occasions. the wife also informed the court that the husband had given false complaints against her to the Registrar (General) of the Madras High Court and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sriviliputhur where the wife was working as a Judicial officer.

The court observed that the husband had made a calculated aim to undermine the self-respect of womanhood. The court observed that the husband's case was a curious one as he had caused mental and physical cruelty to the wife and her family members and had even kidnapped the child. The court noted that the husband's activities were suggestive of his unlawful and high-handed activities.

The court also added that making derogatory complaints to the employer of the spouse, with an intent to harm their professional reputation and financial well-being was nothing but cruelty. In the opinion of the court, this behavior demonstrated a lack of mutual respect and goodwill which was crucial for a healthy marriage. The court added that even if the complaints were made after separation, it did not absolve the spouse from the guilt of committing cruelty.

The court also observed that a spouse engaging in defamatory language directed towards the in-laws not only undermined the dignity and reputation of the individual but also eroded the trust and respect necessary for a healthy marital bond.

Thus, holding that the husband was the wrong doer in the present case and that there was no merits in the case, the court dismissed the appeals preferred by the husband.

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.P.Athimoolapandian

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.M.Michael Bharathi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 207

Case Title: ABC v XYZ

Case No CMA(MD) Nos.612 and 613 of 2022