Orissa HC Imposes ₹25K Cost On Wife For Suppressing Timeline Prescribed By Supreme Court For Disposal Of Matrimonial Dispute By Family Court

The Orissa High Court has recently imposed costs of Rs. 25,000/- on a wife for suppressing the timeline fixed by the Supreme Court, while allowing transfer of the case, for disposal of the marital dispute by the Family Court.

Observing that she made an attempt to mislead the Court to obtain a favourable order, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Krushna Ram Mohapatra said,

“…this Court with pain observes that the Petitioner has suppressed the material facts before this Court in the writ petition, more particularly the timeline fixed by Hon’ble Supreme Court. While moving the interim application also, it was not brought to the notice of the Court that Hon’ble Supreme Court while disposing of the transfer application, has observed that the transferee Court should make an endeavour for disposal of the matrimonial proceeding within six months.”

The writ petition was filed by the petitioner-wife being aggrieved by the order of the Judge, Family Court, Jharsuguda whereby he rejected the petition filed by her for holding further reconciliation sessions between herself and her husband.

The case in hand was registered on the file of the Judge, Jharsuguda on being transferred from Family Court, Jaipur, Rajasthan pursuant to direction of the Supreme Court. It was alleged by the petitioner that after the matter was received by the Family Court, Jharsuguda, the petitioner made sincere attempts for reconciliation. But the Judge, Family Court did not take the matter seriously.

However, the opposite party (husband) contended that though the petitioner stated about the transfer application in her petition, but she conveniently suppressed the timeline provided by Supreme Court for disposal of the civil proceeding. Also, the order of the Supreme Court was not annexed to the writ petition.

Court’s Observations

After hearing both the sides, the Court opined that the petitioner did not approach the Court with clean hands. Although it was stated in the writ petition that the civil proceeding has been transferred to the Family Court, Jharsuguda by the Supreme Court but nothing was mentioned about appearance of the parties through virtual mode or the timeline fixed by the Supreme Court for disposal of the matter.

“The order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also not been annexed to the writ petition. It was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jharsuguda vide its letter No. 111 dated 20th February, 2023 (Flag-Z1). The Opposite Party by filing counter affidavit also brought the aforesaid fact to the notice of this Court,” the Court noted.

While disposing of the transfer application, the Supreme Court observed that both the parties being medical professionals, transferee Court shall permit the parties to appear through virtual mode or at least through their respective Counsel, till such time the trial commences and their appearance becomes necessary.

However, the Court noted, the petitioner filed an application seeking personal appearance of the opposite party for reconciliation which was rejected and the matter was posted for virtual conciliation. Thereafter, on two consecutive dates none of the parties appeared through virtual mode for reconciliation.

It was stated for the petitioner that she could not appear on the first date as the link was not provided to her. But the Court rejected such contention as no such objection was raised by her before the Family Court.

After perusing the order sheet, the Court also noted that the Family Court had made endeavour on earlier occasions for a conciliation between the parties. But the conciliator submitted a report stating that due to absence of the petitioner, conciliation could not be held. Thus, the Court held,

“In view of the above, it can never be said that learned Judge, Family Court has not made any endeavour for reconciliation. It appears that the Petitioner herself did not co-operate for conciliation. Strangely, the Petitioner is shading crocodile tears and making an attempt to blame the Family Court for not making any attempt for conciliation.”

The Court expressed deep anguish over the fact that the petitioner made an attempt to suppress the timeline prescribed by the Apex Court for disposal of the matter and thus, while dismissing the writ petition, it imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the petitioner, which was directed to be paid to the opposite party (husband).

Case Title: Mrs. X v. Mr. Y

Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 2348 of 2023

Date of Judgment: May 5, 2023

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Udgata, Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Party: Mr. Pabitra Kumar Nayak, Advocate

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 61

Click Here To Read/Download Order