- 1 - NC:
2024. KHC:2207 RPFC No.81 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE12H DAY OF JANUARY, 2024 R BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REV. PETITION FAMILY COURT NO.81 OF2023BETWEEN:
1. R. SMITHA SUBRAMANYACHAR W/O SRI. MANJUNATH S.K D/O SRI. SUBRAMANYA ACHAR, AGED ABOUT38YEARS R/AT NO.64, “SRI DARSHINI”, SATHYA MARGA, SIDDHARTHA LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, MYSURU – 570 011.
2. SRI. ADHVIK MANJUNATH, S/O SRI. MANJUNATH S.K, AGED ABOUT5YEARS, SINCE MINOR REP. BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN, SMITHA SUBRAMANYACHAR(MOTHER) R/AT NO.64, “SRI DARSHINI”, SATHYA MARGA, SIDDHARTHA LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, MYSURU – 570 011. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI V.LAKSHMINARAYANA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. ANUSHA L, ADVOCATE FOR M/S BALAJI ASSOCIATES, ADVS.,) AND: SRI. MANJUNATH S K S/O SRI. S. R. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED42YEARS - 2 - NC:
2024. KHC:2207 RPFC No.81 of 2023 R/AT No.1973, MODEL COLONY5H CROSS, T DASARAHALLI BANGALORE – 560 057 ALSO AT SRI MANJUNATH S.K., S/O SRI S.R. KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED42YEARS IT INFRA STRUCTURE SENIOR MANAGER, EMPLOYEE CODE. 04552Q774 IBM INDIA PVT., LTD., EGL MANYATA TECH PARK “K” BLOCK, BENGALURU …RESPONDENT THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION194) OF FAMILY COURT ACT AGAINST THE
ORDERDATED2407.2020 PASSED IN C.MISC.No.185/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION1252) FOR MAINTENANCE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDERThis revision petition is filed against the order passed on I.A.No.II filed under Section 125(2) of Cr.P.C., being aggrieved in not considering and not granting interim maintenance to petitioner No.1-wife.-. 3 - NC:
2024. KHC:2207 RPFC No.81 of 2023 2. The office has raised objection that in view of Section 19(4) of Family Court Act against the interim order, the revision petition is not maintainable.
3. The Family Court vide order dated 24.07.2020 has passed an order on I.A.No.II filed under Section 125(2) of Family Court Act granting only interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- pm., to petitioner No.2-child, but has not considered the application for interim maintenance to petitioner No.1-wife. The order impugned is an interlocutory order passed on I.A.No.II. As per Section 19(4) of Family Court Act against the interlocutory order, the revision petition is not maintainable.
4. However, considering the records that the petitioners had filed C.Misc.No.185/2020 before the Family Court on 24.02.2020, but till today after lapse of four years, the Family Court has not passed any order on the petition filed by the petitioners. The petitioners are wife - 4 - NC:
2024. KHC:2207 RPFC No.81 of 2023 and child. The maintenance petition is filed on the ground that the respondent has deserted the petitioners. Therefore, for survival and for getting maintenance, a speedy remedy is provided under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
5. If these types of petitions are pending for long time as in the present case, then the very object and purpose of enacting Section 125 of Cr.P.C., is defeated. If the Courts delay in disposing of the petitions within a reasonable period of time, then it would frustrate the petitioners and the very object of providing such benevolent provision is of no use. But the Family Court is not sensitive in considering the petitions on merits. Hence, the very object of establishing of Family Court exclusively dealing with family matters in providing effective and speedy remedy goes vain. These types of cases involve human relations aspect and survival in life of wife and children are involved. Therefore, in order to avoid such a miserable life by the wife and children where they are - 5 - NC:
2024. KHC:2207 RPFC No.81 of 2023 deserted by the husband and for sustaining in life, such a speedy remedy is provided under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. These are all not considered by the Family Court. For one or other reason, the petition is pending for more than four years since 24.02.2020. Taking long period of four years is nothing, but insensitiveness on the part of the Family Court.
6. Therefore, the Family Court is hereby directed to dispose of the instant petition within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Both the parties shall co-operate with the Family Court for early disposal as directed above.
7. It is common experience of the Court that wherever petitions are filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., for seeking maintenance basically involves question of survival in the society, but the petitions are being delayed in the Family Courts across the State. Therefore, - 6 - NC:
2024. KHC:2207 RPFC No.81 of 2023 considering the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the catena of decisions where it is held that speedy trial/enquiry is the fundamental rights of the parties as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
8. The object and reasons of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., is a beneficial legislation providing social security to the destitute. To achieve the aspirations of Preamble and Part IV of Directive Principles of State Policy of Constitution of India, Section 125 is the remedy to achieve social justice. Sustaining life in the society does not mean mere animal existence, but to live with dignity even at minimum level of income. When the wife, children, father and mother have become destitute, the survival in the society is paramount thing and getting means by maintenance cannot be stretched for too long period. At the very moment they become destitute from that day onwards their struggle starts to survive in the society. The - 7 - NC:
2024. KHC:2207 RPFC No.81 of 2023 hungry of stomach cannot wait till the order of granting maintenance. Therefore, under this plight of destitute, the Court must have been sensitive in keeping in mind the object and reasons provided under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The Family Court should not be oblivious to this benevolent legislation. Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again was pleased to issue guidelines, which are mandatory to be followed by all the Courts in the Country. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs. Meena and Others1 were pleased to observe at paragraph Nos.7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 as follows: “7. At the outset, we are obliged to reiterate the principle of law how a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code has to be dealt with by the court, and what is the duty of a Family Court after establishment of such courts by the Family Courts Act, 1984. In Dukhtar Jahan v. Mohd. Farooq .
16. “… Proceedings under Section 125 [of the Code]., it must be remembered, are of a summary nature and are intended to enable destitute wives and children, the latter whether they are legitimate or illegitimate, to get maintenance in a speedy manner.
8. A three-Judge Bench in Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.) , while discussing about the basic purpose under Section 125 of the Code, opined that : (SCC p. 378, para
3) 1 (2015) 6 SCC353- 8 - NC:
2024. KHC:2207 RPFC No.81 of 2023 3. “Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife.
9. A two-Judge Bench in Kirtikant D. Vadodaria v. State of Gujarat , while adverting to the dominant purpose behind Section 125 of the Code, ruled that : (SCC p. 489, para
15) 15. “… While dealing with the ambit and scope of the provision contained in Section 125 of the Code, it has to be borne in mind that the dominant and primary object is to give social justice to the woman, child and infirm parents, etc. and to prevent destitution and vagrancy by compelling those who can support those who are unable to support themselves but have a moral claim for support. The provisions in Section 125 provide a speedy remedy to those women, children and destitute parents who are in distress. The provisions in Section 125 are intended to achieve this special purpose. The dominant purpose behind the benevolent provisions contained in Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child and parents should not be left in a helpless state of distress, destitution and starvation.
10. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai , reiterating the legal position the Court held : (SCC p. 320, para
6) 6. “… Section 125 Cr.P.C is a measure of social justice and is specially enacted to protect women and children and as noted by this Court in Capt. Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal falls within constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India. It is meant to achieve a social purpose. The object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights and natural duties of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents when they are unable to maintain themselves. The aforesaid position was highlighted in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat .
11. Recently in Nagendrappa Natikar v. Neelamma , it has been stated that it is a piece of social legislation which provides for a summary and speedy relief by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself and her children.
12. The Family Courts have been established for adopting and facilitating the conciliation procedure and to deal with family disputes in - 9 - NC:
2024. KHC:2207 RPFC No.81 of 2023 a speedy and expeditious manner. A three-Judge Bench in K.A. Abdul Jaleel v. T.A. Shahida , while highlighting on the purpose of bringing in the Family Courts Act by the legislature, opined thus : (SCC p. 170, para
10) 10. “The Family Courts Act was enacted to provide for the establishment of Family Courts with a view to promote conciliation in, and secure speedy settlement of, disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for matters connected therewith.
13. The purpose of highlighting this aspect is that in the case at hand the proceeding before the Family Court was conducted without being alive to the Objects and Reasons of the Act and the spirit of the provisions under Section 125 of the Code. It is unfortunate that the case continued for nine years before the Family Court. It has come to the notice of the Court that on certain occasions the Family Courts have been granting adjournments in a routine manner as a consequence of which both the parties suffer or, on certain occasions, the wife becomes the worst victim. When such a situation occurs, the purpose of the law gets totally atrophied. The Family Judge is expected to be sensitive to the issues, for he is dealing with extremely delicate and sensitive issues pertaining to the marriage and issues ancillary thereto. When we say this, we do not mean that the Family Courts should show undue haste or impatience, but there is a distinction between impatience and to be wisely anxious and conscious about dealing with a situation. A Family Court Judge should remember that the procrastination is the greatest assassin of the lis before it. It not only gives rise to more family problems but also gradually builds unthinkable and Everestine bitterness. It leads to the cold refrigeration of the hidden feelings, if still left. The delineation of the lis by the Family Judge must reveal the awareness and balance. Dilatory tactics by any of the parties has to be sternly dealt with, for the Family Court Judge has to be alive to the fact that the lis before him pertains to emotional fragmentation and delay can feed it to grow. We hope and trust that the Family Court Judges shall remain alert to this and decide the matters as expeditiously as possible keeping in view the Objects and Reasons of the Act and the scheme of various provisions pertaining to grant of maintenance, divorce, custody of child, property disputes, etc.,” - 10 - NC:
2024. KHC:2207 RPFC No.81 of 2023 9. Therefore, the Court feels that certain directions are necessary to be issued to the Family Courts to follow the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the family law matters under various enactments/statues and in regard to the petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., for maintenance, following directions are issued. PART B “2. Given the backdrop of the facts of the present case, which reveal that the application for interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C has remained pending before the courts for seven years now, and the difficulties encountered in the enforcement of orders passed by the courts, as the wife was constrained to move successive applications for enforcement from time to time, we deem it appropriate to frame guidelines on the issue of maintenance, which would cover overlapping jurisdiction under different enactments for payment of maintenance, payment of interim maintenance, the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance, the date from which maintenance is to be awarded, and enforcement of orders of maintenance. 2 AIR2021SC569- 11 - NC:
2024. KHC:2207 RPFC No.81 of 2023 Guidelines/Directions on maintenance 3. Maintenance laws have been enacted as a measure of social justice to provide recourse to dependent wives and children for their financial support, so as to prevent them from falling into destitution and vagrancy.
4. Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India provides that: “Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children.
5. Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution of India, which envisages a positive role for the State in fostering change towards the empowerment of women, led to the enactment of various legislations from time to time.
6. Justice Krishna Iyer, J.
in his judgment in Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and Ors. held that the object of maintenance laws is : “9. This provision is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39. We have no doubt that sections of statutes calling for construction by courts are not petrified print but vibrant words with social functions to fulfil. The brooding presence of the constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed, it is possible to be - 12 - NC:
2024. KHC:2207 RPFC No.81 of 2023 selective in picking out that interpretation out of two alternatives which advances the cause — the cause of the derelicts.
7. The legislations which have been framed on the issue of maintenance are the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (“SMA”), Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“the DV Act”) which provide a statutory remedy to women, irrespective of the religious community to which they belong, apart from the personal laws applicable to various religious communities. x x x x (d) Section 125 of the Cr.P.C Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides for maintenance of wife, children and parents in a summary proceeding. Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C may be claimed by a person irrespective of the religious community to which they belong. The purpose and object of Section 125 Cr.P.C is to provide immediate relief to an applicant. An application under Section 125 Cr.P.C is predicated on two conditions : (i) the husband has sufficient means; and (ii) “neglects” to maintain his wife, who is unable to maintain herself. In such a case, the husband may be directed by the Magistrate to pay such monthly sum to the wife, as deemed fit. Maintenance is awarded on the basis of the financial capacity of the husband and other relevant factors. The remedy provided by Section 125 is summary in nature, and the substantive - 13 - NC:
2024. KHC:2207 RPFC No.81 of 2023 disputes with respect to dissolution of marriage can be determined by a civil court/Family Court in an appropriate proceeding, such as the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. In Bhagwan Dutt v. Kamla Devi the Supreme Court held that under Section 125(1) Cr.P.C only a wife who is “unable to maintain herself” is entitled to seek maintenance. The Court held: “19. The object of these provisions being to prevent vagrancy and destitution, the Magistrate has to find out as to what is required by the wife to maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious, but is modestly consistent with the status of the family. The needs and requirements of the wife for such moderate living can be fairly determined, only if her separate income, also, is taken into account together with the earnings of the husband and his commitments.” (emphasis supplied) Prior to the amendment of Section 125 in 2001, there was a ceiling on the amount which could be awarded as maintenance, being Rs.500 “in the whole”. In view of the rising costs of living and inflation rates, the ceiling of Rs.500 was done away with by the 2001 Amendment Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amendment Act states that the wife had to wait for several years before being granted maintenance. Consequently, the Amendment Act introduced an express provision for grant of “interim maintenance”. The Magistrate was vested with the power to order the respondent to make a monthly allowance towards interim - 14 - NC:
2024. KHC:2207 RPFC No.81 of 2023 maintenance during the pendency of the petition. Under Sub-section (2) of Section 125, the court is conferred with the discretion to award payment of maintenance either from the date of the order, or from the date of the application. Under the third proviso to the amended Section 125, the application for grant of interim maintenance must be disposed of as far as possible within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the respondent. The amended Section 125 reads as under: “125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. (1) x x x x (2) x x x x (3) x x x x (4) x x x x (5) x x x x In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai this Court held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife by providing her food, clothing and shelter by a speedy remedy. Section 125 Cr.P.C is a measure of social justice especially enacted to protect women and children, and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution.-. 15 - NC:
2024. KHC:2207 RPFC No.81 of 2023 Proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C are summary in nature. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and Ors. this Court held that Section 125 Cr.P.C was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who had left her matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children. Since it is the sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor children, the husband was required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able- bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on any legally permissible ground mentioned in the statute. The issue whether presumption of marriage arises when parties are in a live-in relationship for a long period of time, which would give rise to a claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C came up for consideration in Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Anr. before the Supreme Court. It was held that where a man and a woman have cohabited for a long period of time, in the absence of legal necessities of a valid marriage, such a woman would be entitled to maintenance. A man should not be allowed to benefit from legal loopholes, by enjoying the advantages of a de facto marriage, without undertaking the duties and obligations of such marriage. A broad and expansive interpretation must be given to the term “wife”, to include even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time. Strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court relied on the Malimath Committee Report on Reforms of Criminal Justice System - 16 - NC:
2024. KHC:2207 RPFC No.81 of 2023 published in 2003, which recommended that evidence regarding a man and woman living together for a reasonably long period, should be sufficient to draw the presumption of marriage. The law presumes in favour of marriage, and against concubinage, when a man and woman cohabit continuously for a number of years. Unlike matrimonial proceedings where strict proof of marriage is essential, in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C such strict standard of proof is not necessary.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh’s case (stated supra) has issued guidelines. The Family Courts are directed to adhere to the guidelines issued in this regard. For determining quantum of maintenance and maintenance amount shall be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e., maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort.-. 17 - NC:
2024. KHC:2207 RPFC No.81 of 2023 11. This Court in the case of Pratibha Singh Vs. Vineet Kumar3 has issued certain directions to speed up enquiry. Even though, the said judgment is in the context of grant of interim maintenance, but it is applicable to consider the case on merits to pass final order also. At Paragraph No.14, certain directions are issued to dispose of the applications filed for maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and issued directions to the Family Courts to adhere to the following timeline. “14. It thus becomes imperative for this Court to issue directions to the concerned courts to adhere to a timeline, in all cases, where I applications are filed for maintenance under section 24 of the Act. The concerned Courts shall adhere to the following timeline: a. Notice on the application be issued immediately. Service through E-mail/What's App, shall also be valid service in the eye of law. b. The concerned Court shall grant two months to the husband to file his objections to the application filed by the wife seeking interim maintenance under section 24 of the Act. c. The wife also should be given the same two months to file statement of assets and liabilities. d. On the assets and liabilities so filed by the wife, the concerned Court shall consider the 3 2023 SCC Online Kar 128 - 18 - NC:
2024. KHC:2207 RPFC No.81 of 2023 contentions of the parties, hear them and pass appropriate orders, within four months thereafter, if not earlier. e. Therefore, the outer limit to decide any application seeking interim maintenance is six months from the date of its filing. f. To achieve this timeline, the concerned Court should refrain itself from granting unnecessary adjournments to both the husband and the wife. g. If the husband or the wife would not co-operate with the closure of the proceedings qua the application for interim maintenance the Court would be free to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. h. Any delay beyond six months should be only on reasons recorded in writing in the order that would be passed. It is made clear that the concerned Courts shall adhere to the aforesaid timeline, as the wife should not be made to wait for years together, to get certain amount of maintenance from the hands of the husband. In many a case, the wife would be driven to penury, the moment she walks out of the matrimonial house on manifold reasons. To avoid the wife being driven to such impecuniosities, the aforesaid timeline should be strictly followed.
12. Therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh’s case and judgment of this Court in Pratibha’s case, the timeline for considering the - 19 - NC:
2024. KHC:2207 RPFC No.81 of 2023 interim maintenance application is six months from the date of institution of the petition.
13. When the petition is filed for certain maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., and for similar relief, any applications or petitions filed under other statutes, it is directed to the Family Courts to insist the petitioner and respondent to file affidavit of assets, income and liabilities as per the format stated in Enclosures I and II stated in Rajnesh’s case. Both the petitioner and respondent shall file affidavit as per the dictum of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further certain directions are issued as follows:
14. The petitioner shall file such affidavit within a period of one month from the date of institution of the petition. The respondent shall file such affidavit within a period of one month from the date of receipt of notice in the petition.-. 20 - NC:
2024. KHC:2207 RPFC No.81 of 2023 15. The proceeding under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., is a summary proceeding in nature and strict rules of evidence are not applicable. The principle of natural justice shall be followed while adjudicating the petition. The petitioner shall complete the evidence within a period of one month from the date of appearance of the respondent or deemed appearance or when the respondent placed exparte. Soon after completion of evidence of the petitioner, the respondent shall complete his side evidences within a period of one month from the date of completion of evidence of the petitioner.
16. After completion of evidence by both the sides, then within 15 days from such date, argument shall be heard and after completion of argument within 15 days final order shall be delivered in accordance with law.
17. The Karnataka (Case Flow Management in Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 2005” for short) mandates on the Courts of the - 21 - NC:
2024. KHC:2207 RPFC No.81 of 2023 District Judiciary to make endeavour to dispose of the cases in the time bound manner according to categorization of cases as Track-I, Track-II, Track-III and Trade-IV as stated in Rule 3 of the Rules, 2005.
18. The Presiding Officer of the Court shall categorize the cases pending before him into four tracks and put every effort and make endeavour to dispose of the cases within the timeline stated in Rule 3 of the Rules, 2005.
19. Rule 3 of Rules, 2005, stipulates as follows: “3. Categorisation of suits and other proceedings:- (1) The Presiding Officer of the Court shall categorise the suits and proceedings in his Court into Track-I, Track-II, Track-III and Track-IV. a) Track-I: (1) Maintenance, (2) Child Custody, (3) Appointment of guardian and wards, (4) Visiting Rights, (5) Letters of Administration (6) Succession Certificate, (7) Recovery of Rent, (8) Permanent injunction. b) Track –II: (1) Execution cases, (2) Divorce, (3) Ejectment.-. 22 - NC:
2024. KHC:2207 RPFC No.81 of 2023 c) Track –III: (1) Partition, (2) Declaration, (3) Specific performance, (4) Possession, (5) Mandatory Injunction, (6) Appeals, (7) Damages, (8) Easements, (9) Trademarks Copy Rights Patents, (10) Intellectual Property Rights. d) Track- IV: Such other matters not included in Track- I to III shall in Track -IV (2) The Presiding Officer shall endeavour to dispose of the cases in Track-I within 9 months, the cases in Track-II within 12 months and the cases in Track-III and IV within 24 months from the date of appearance or deemed appearance of defendant-respondent. Note: The time prescribed for disposal of the suit/proceeding is the maximum time limit. (3) The Presiding Officer at the request of the parties and for valid reason can dispose of the cases early, irrespective of the Track norms prescribed.
20. The cases pertaining to grant of maintenance, child custody, appointment of guardian and wards, visiting rights, letters of administration, succession certificate, recovery of rent and permanent injunction are made to come under Track-I and the cases coming under Track-I shall be disposed of within nine months from the date of appearance or deemed appearance of the defendants and respondents. Therefore, it is hereby directed to all the - 23 - NC:
2024. KHC:2207 RPFC No.81 of 2023 Family Courts in the State to dispose of the cases relating to family laws as categorized under Track-I within nine months from the date of appearance or deemed appearance of defendants and respondents. Re: striking off defence:
21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh’s case has issued guidelines regarding striking off defence of the husband in case the husband fails to comply with the order passed for granting interim maintenance and cost of litigations. In case, the respondent-husband uses any dilatory tactics in causing delay in the proceeding and fails to comply to the directions of granting interim maintenance and cost of litigations during pendency of the proceedings shall strike off the defence of husband. Then the Family Court shall go on with the proceedings and dispose of the petition within a timeline as stated in Rules, 2005.-. 24 - NC:
2024. KHC:2207 RPFC No.81 of 2023 22. The Registrar General is directed to circulate this order to all the Family Courts and to all the Courts in District Judiciary in the State. Accordingly, petition is disposed of. In view of disposal of the petition, I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of. In the instant case, the Family Court is directed to dispose of the matter within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Both the parties shall co-operate with the Family Court for early disposal as directed above. Sd/- JUDGE PB List No.:
1. Sl No.:
1.