HC judge challenges time limit for settling matrimonial disputes

CHENNAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court advised the Chief Justice to consider fixing a time limit for disposal of cases related to matrimonial disputes so as to curb the consumption of large hours of the family courts.

Dismissing an appeal preferred by a man challenging a divorce order, Judge RMT Teekaa Raman decried that it has become the “custom or trend” for the family court that after the trial of a divorce petition filed by a divorce-seeking spouse reaches its end of After the procedure, the other would submit a new request for the return of marital rights.

“A certain period of limitation must be fixed to curb this malicious practice before the family courts, which consumes vast hours of the court and also causes delay of untold years in the hearing of the original petition,” the judge said.

The High Court Rules Committee (civil) will examine the matter and prescribe a limitation period in the event that one of the spouses files a petition for marriage and the summons has been served on the other party. restriction on filing a counterclaim, he added in the judgment.

The judge also directed the registry to place a copy of the order for consideration before Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala for the latter to refer the matter to the Rules Committee (Civil) for consideration.

The plea came before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court after the appellant challenged the order of the Tiruchy Family Court, which allowed the divorce petition filed by his ex-wife. The woman approached the family court and filed for divorce from him, stating that he misrepresented his educational qualification and also demanded dowry.

In 2015, at the end of the divorce petition, he filed a petition requesting the return of marital rights. However, the family court allowed the divorce petition filed by the woman.

Aggrieved by this, the man filed a petition in the Madurai bench alleging that his wife, a judicial officer, had abused her power and filed a false complaint against him. He also claimed that he was subjected to cruelty and humiliation.

After studying the documents, the judge wrote that the man wanted to cover up all his misdeeds by falsely claiming that the woman, as bailiff, had taken the upper hand and abused her post. The judge ruled that the appeal was unfounded and declared the appeal unfounded.