'Remember We Exist For Litigants' : Supreme Court Rebukes Registry For Not Drawing Divorce Decree For 5 Months
The Supreme Court (on March 01) expressed its displeasure on its Registry for failing to comply with its specific direction to draw a decree of divorce. It is appropriate to mention that under this decree, more than ten proceedings were disposed of by mutual consent. However, this direction was not complied with for more than five months. “We must note here that the decree is of...
The Supreme Court (on March 01) expressed its displeasure on its Registry for failing to comply with its specific direction to draw a decree of divorce. It is appropriate to mention that under this decree, more than ten proceedings were disposed of by mutual consent. However, this direction was not complied with for more than five months.
“We must note here that the decree is of divorce under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and more than 10 proceedings were disposed of under the said decree. In a case like this, the parties immediately require a certified copy of the decree. However, the decree was not drawn for a period of more than 5 months.”
While going through the report explaining delay, Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan expressed its dismay and noted that “it shows the sorry state of affairs.”
To provide a brief factual background, an appeal arising out of the matrimonial dispute was disposed of last September after recording the settlement terms. In its order, the Top Court had specifically asked the Registry to draw a decree. However, the same was not done for several months. Following this, the Registrar (Judicial Listing) was called upon (on February 12) to submit a report explaining the delay. Accordingly, report was submitted along with the explanation by various staff members.
When the matter was taken up on March 01, the Division Bench perused the reports. The court observed that one of the excuses was that the original settlement terms were misplaced. The Court strongly rebuked this and recorded:
“We fail to understand how the Registry can refuse to draw the decree on the ground that the original settlement terms were not available. When there is an order of the Court to draw a decree in a particular manner, it was the duty of the Registry to do so.”
Taking note of another excuse, which was that the original settlement terms were not forwarded by the Court Master, the Court observed that the report had termed the same as totally incorrect. The report mentioned that the terms were, in fact, forwarded by the Court Master but were misplaced.
“The report shows that even the said excuse was totally incorrect, as the settlement terms were forwarded by the Court Master which were misplaced due to no fault of the Court Master of this Court.”
The Court also pressed on the seriousness of this issue and observed that the Top Court, while exercising its inherent power, put an end to matrimonial disputes. Thus, several orders are passed through, and proceedings between the couple are quashed while a divorce decree is granted. However, unless the decree is made available, the Court's order is of no use to the parties.
In view of this, the Court, in its order, also stated that the Registry has to be prompt and has to draw the decree at the earliest before adding, “All of us who are part of the justice delivery system must remember that we exist for the benefit of the litigants.”
Nevertheless, given that the staff members had expressed regret, the Court decided not to take action against them. At the same time, the Registrar was directed to ensure no delay in drawing the decrees.
The court added, “The Handbook of Practice and Procedure provides for drawing a decree within one week. No further directions are required.”
Notably, before parting, the Court noted that the decree in the present case has now been drawn. In view of this, the Registry was asked to provide a certified copy of the decree to the parties as soon as possible.
Also Read - Supreme Court Reprimands Registry For Not Listing Case Violating Judicial Order
Supreme Court Pulls Up Registry For Not Listing Adani Power Case Despite Judicial Order
Case Title: VINIT VILAS VAIDYA vs. MANJIRI VINIT VAIDYA., Diary No.- 449 – 2023
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 194
Click here to read/ download theorder