Courts cannot dispose of matters at cost of sacrificing cause of justice: Delhi High Court pulls up family court

The Delhi High Court recently pulled up a family court judge for dismissing a divorce petition when the parties before it sought adjournment on the ground that they were in the process of negotiation [Commodore Pavan Chauhan v Anusha Chauhan]..A Division Bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that the order under challenge reflects 'very poorly' on the manner in which the family court conducted itself. The order stated,"We are dismayed at the approach adopted by Ms. Anju Bajaj Chandna, Principal Judge, Family Court, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. The endeavour of the Court cannot be simply to dispose of matters, one way or another at the cost of sacrificing the cause of justice. The Family Courts are expected to function so as to bring about a settlement, if possible. Since the parties, themselves, were seeking an adjournment on account of them being in negotiation, there was no justification for the Family Court to have declined the request for adjournment made before it; to have closed the right of the appellant to lead evidence and; to proceed to judgment dismissing the divorce petition. The impugned order reflects very poorly in the manner in which the Family Court has conducted itself.".The Court was hearing an appeal against a family court order in a divorce petition preferred by a husband under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. It was alleged that the family court had dismissed the petition after observing that the appellant had failed to lead evidence, and after closing his right to lead evidence. This prompted him to move the High Court..Counsel for the petitioner informed the High Court that the parties were negotiating a settlement, for which time was sought from the family court repeatedly. On that account, affidavits by way of evidence have not been filed.Counsel for the respondent informed the Court that the position stated by the appellant was correct..The High Court thus set aside the order and referred the parties for mediation, at their request..[READ ORDER]