(2015) 5 Supreme Court Cases 705
Shamima Farooqui
Versus
Shahid Khan..
Criminal Appeals Nos. 564-65 of 2015 Date of Judgment: April 6, 2015
What is disturbing is that though the application for grant of maintenance was filed in the year 1998, it was not decided till 17.2.2012. It is also shocking to note that there was no order for grant of interim maintenance. It needs no special emphasis to state that when an application for grant of maintenance is filed by the wife the delay in disposal of the application, to say the least, is an unacceptable situation. It is, in fact, a distressing phenomenon.
An application for grant of maintenance has to be disposed of at the earliest. The family courts,
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.”