J&K High Court Cautions Against Use Of "Divorcee" Against Name Of Women In Cause Title, Says Such Pleas Would Not Be Registered

The Court observed that if a woman is labeled and shown as a “divorcee,” as if it were her surname or caste, then a man who divorces his wife should also be called and suffixed as a “divorcer,” which, however, would be a bad practice. Such a practice should not only be stopped but rather crushed. The Court directed the Registrar Judicial to place the judgment before the Chief Justice for passing a circular order with respect to the same.

A Bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Kaul made the above observation after perusing the record, wherein it noticed that the name of the Respondent was suffixed with “divorcee” by the Petitioner in the cause title. The Court said that such an act on the part of the Petitioner was unbecoming and reflective of his character.

The Court also dismissed the review petition filed by the Petitioner, stating that the same was misconceived and that the order passed by the trial court did not suffer from any infirmity. The Court held that the trial court was justified in modifying the visitation rights of the Petitioner, emphasizing that a child's welfare is paramount and that forcing interactions could have long-term psychological effects.

The Petitioner had raised the objection that passing of the impugned order without hearing the Petitioner was bad in law. Responding to this averment, the Court held that the non-appearance of parties could not be a reason for not deciding cases, as it has generally become routine to protract matters.

BACKGROUND

The actual dispute between the parties was with respect to the order reducing the visitation rights of the Petitioner by the trial court. The trial court had earlier passed an order allowing the Petitioner to meet the child twice a month, but when the same could not be materialized, the trial court, in its impugned order, modified the visitation rights of the Petitioner. The court cited that the ward did not want to interact with the Appellant, as he refused to do so, wept, cried, and demonstrated fear when he was brought to the court. The Petitioner filed an appeal against the trial court's order, which was dismissed, and thereafter, he filed the instant review petition.

The Court rejected all the arguments made by the review Petitioner and held that the trial court's order did not suffer from any defect and was passed after duly considering the welfare of the child. The Court said that the trial court was justified in modifying the visitation rights from twice a month to once a month, based on the fact that the child was fearful of the Petitioner, while it had also acknowledged that, slowly and gradually, the child should be motivated towards the Petitioner in his own interest.

The Court dismissed the review petition as misconceived, imposing a cost of ₹20,000 on the Petitioner, to be deposited by him within a period of one month.

APPEARANCE

I.Sofi, Advocate for Petitioners

Respondents through None

Case-Title: Parvez Ahmad Khan vs Areeb 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 40

Click Here To Read/Download The Order