Delhi High Court directs re-training for family court judge who made up provision to pass divorce decree

The Delhi High Court recently set aside a divorce decree passed by a family court at Patiala House and ordered mandatory re-training for the presiding judge, after finding that the verdict was based on non-existent legal provisions and delivered without recording any evidence..The High Court highlighted concerns about repeated procedural and legal lapses in Judge Harish Kumar’s handling of matrimonial matters.It directed the Delhi Judicial Academy to ensure that Judge Kumar undergoes a comprehensive refresher training program in matrimonial law before presiding over any further matrimonial matters.The Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that regardless of the mounting burden on family courts, statutory limits cannot be modified or bypassed. "While we are conscious that Family Courts are heavily burdened, owing to the increasing frequency with which parties separate, often on exceedingly trivial grounds, and the general erosion of the sanctity of marriage, this cannot be treated as a licence for any Court to indulge in what can only be described as statutory reengineering. The statutory scheme must be followed, irrespective of caseload pressures." .The case concerns a matrimonial dispute arising from a marriage that ended in separation. It led to multiple civil and criminal proceedings filed in different states. A divorce petition was filed in 2021 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) alleging cruelty. Owing to simultaneous litigation in several jurisdictions and transfer requests filed by the parties, the matter reached the Supreme Court, which eventually directed that the divorce proceedings be moved to Delhi for consolidated adjudication.Before the family court in Delhi, the petitioner’s right to lead evidence was closed on the first date fixed for cross-examination and no oral evidence from either party was recorded. The court nevertheless proceeded to dissolve the marriage, relying on provisions of the Special Marriage Act (SMA) despite the petition having been filed under the HMA. The family court judge also made a reference to a non-existent “Section 28A” of the SMA. These findings prompted the High Court to intervene..The High Court observed that this was not an isolated incident. It referred to several earlier matters where Judge Kumar had taken a similar approach in dissolving marriages without applying statutory requirements."The same learned Judge has, in several matters coming before this roster, repeatedly ignored clear statutory mandates. Although appellate courts exist to correct errors of subordinate courts, they cannot permit a situation where proceedings are conducted in disregard of the law or judgments are rendered on the basis of provisions that do not exist.".The Bench also took note of remarks made by Judge Kumar distinguishing Hindu marriages as “holy unions” and suggesting that marriages solemnised under the SMA do not share the same character."Whether a marriage is viewed as a sacrament or as a civil contract under different personal laws has no bearing whatsoever on the sanctity, legitimacy, or legal force of a marriage solemnised under the SMA. The SMA is a secular code intended to provide a neutral and uniform legal framework for couples who choose to marry under it, and it in no manner diminishes the dignity, solemnity, or seriousness of such marriages. To characterise marriages under the SMA as not being a “holy union” is, therefore, neither appropriate nor appreciable," it said.The High Court acknowledged the general caution issued by the Supreme Court against making personal remarks about judicial officers. However, it clarified that the circumstances in this case compelled criticism. They said, "The manner in which the learned Family Court Judge has repeatedly conducted proceedings not only disturbs judicial conscience but also threatens the integrity of the administration of justice.".The Court thus set aside the decree of divorce and ordered a fresh trial before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patiala House. Both parties have been permitted to lead oral and documentary evidence afresh. The appellant was represented by Advocates Prosenjeet Banerjee, Shreya Singhal, Mhasilenuo Keditsu, Kushagra, Anshika, Vijayrajeshwari and Sarthak. The respondent was represented by Advocates Padma Priya, Chitrangda Rastrauara, Abhijeet Singh, Anirudh Singh, Aishwaray Mishra, Dhananjay Shekhawat, Sakshi Aggarwal, Yuvraj Singh, Pearl Pundir and Bhumika..[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.