Family Courts should have litigant-friendly approach, not be hyper-technical: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently said that family courts should avoid a hyper-technical approach and should have a litigant-friendly mindset while dealing with cases (Ajay Dubey vs. Annapurna)..A Division Bench of Justices Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh said that many a time, parties appear before family courts in person without the help of lawyers. Therefore, the rigid rules of evidence and procedure are more relaxed in family courts, the Court said."The Family Court is obliged to function so as to relieve the parties of the suffering that they are going through on account of matrimonial disputes. It is expected to act with due application of mind and without being hypertechnical about matters brought before it. The Family Court should have a litigant friendly approach, and function in the spirit of helping parties resolve their disputes – either mutually, or through the Courts determination," the Court said..Any objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of a court to hear a matter must be raised at the earliest opportunity and not at a later stage, especially when neither party raised it, the Court further said."The (family) court having assumed jurisdiction, cannot at a later stage, refuse to exercise its jurisdiction by raising the said objection, when neither party raises it," the Court said..The order was passed in a plea for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In this case, the Court was dealing with an appeal that challenged two orders passed by a family court at Karkardooma Court.The first motion petition under Section 13(B)(1) had been entertained by the Court in 2019. However, the next year, when the second motion petition came before the family court under Section 13B(2), it was dismissed on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction..In its order, the High Court observed that the family court's approach in this case had been 'narrow', 'pedantic' and 'mechanical'."The Family Court is obliged to function so as to relieve the parties of the suffering that they are going through on account of matrimonial disputes. It is expected to act with due application of mind and without being hypertechnical about matters brought before it. The Family Court should have a litigant friendly approach, and function in the spirit of helping parties resolve their disputes – either mutually, or through the Courts determination.".The Court also asserted that the parties had clearly stated their place of residence before the family court and that the same had fallen within its jurisdiction. It was also noted that when the petition under Section 13B was first entertained, the first motion was allowed. In doing so, the Family Court had made it clear that it had jurisdiction in the matter."With the passing of the impugned orders, the Family Court has, therefore, created an anomaly, inasmuch, as though the First Motion in the Petition has been allowed by the same Family Court, the Second Motion in the same Petition has been dismissed, on account of assumed lack of territorial jurisdiction," the Court ordered.The Court thus allowed the present appeal and set aside the order of the Family Court..The parties were directed to appear before the Family Court for consideration of the second motion petition on September 22..Advocate Pradeep Kumar appeared for the appellant, while the respondent appeared in person..[Read Order]