“Family Court Judges are under judicial suffocation”, Madras HC chastises advocate who argued in contempt plea against judge

The Madras High Court recently had occasion to sound a sympathetic note for the heavy caseload that Family Court judges in the state are faced with. In this regard, Justice PN Prakash remarked,.“We are conscious of the fact that though there are six Family Courts in Chennai, every Family Court is so overburdened with burgeoning matrimonial disputes that the Family Court Judges are under judicial suffocation.”.The observation was made while dismissing a contempt petition filed against a Family Court judge. The petitioner before the Court had filed a maintenance plea for maintenance before the IIIrd Additional Family Court, Chennai back in 2006..In 2017 she approached the High Court seeking directions to expedite the case proceedings. After she failed to appear before the High Court, in 2018 the Court passed an order issuing a general direction to the lower court to complete the proceedings within six months, provided there is no legal impediment..However, the petitioner approached the High Court again this year, claiming that the Family Court had not complied with the 2017 order. Notably, she filed a contempt plea against the Family Court Judge. The Registry initially posted the matter under the head for Maintainability before the Bench..When the matter was taken up initially, neither the petitioner nor her lawyer appeared. However, after the Court posted the matter for dismissal, Advocate R Krishnamurthy appeared for the petitioner, contending that the High Court should proceed against the Family Court judge for contempt of court..As recorded in the Court order, the Bench attempted to explain to Advocate Krishnamurthy that the contempt plea is not maintainable given the protection granted to judges under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. Nevertheless, Krishnamurthy is said to have persisted with the plea, citing the example of the Supreme Court having taken action against a former judge..In an exasperated response, the Bench responds in its order passed on August 29,.“It is indeed very sad and unfortunate that an advocate who claims to practise in the Supreme Court, is unaware of the circumstances under which the Supreme Court had taken action in the case referred to by him and that cannot be cited as a precedent to take action against the Family Court Judge for not disposing of the case as directed by this Court. Whenever a Court subordinate to the High Court is unable to complete a case within the deadline set by the High Court, the concerned Judge would make a request for extension of time, which will be normally granted. In the opinion of this Court, this petition has been filed only to terrorise the Family Court Judge.”.Moreover, in view of the overburdened status of family courts, the Court proceeded to opine that the petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. The Court, however, refrained from opting for this course of action, in view of the fact that the petitioner may suffer due to the ill advice of her counsel. It, therefore, simply dismissed the plea as for lack of maintainability..[Read the Order]