9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 1275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cess of the court. Petitioner has approached the different forums for the same relief merely because he is very much eager and keen to get the marriage dissolved immediately even by abusing the process of the Court. In Jai Singh v. Union of India [ 1976 (11) TMI 195 - SUPREME COURT] , this Court while dealing with a similar issue held that a litigant cannot pursue two parallel remedies in respect of the same matter at the same time. This judgment has subsequently been approved by this Court in principle but distinguished on facts in Awadh Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar [ 1995 (8) TMI 320 - SUPREME COURT] and Arunima Baruah v. Union of India [ 2007 (4) TMI 695 - SUPREME COURT] . Even otherwise, the statutory period of six months for filing the second petition u/s 13-B(2) of the Act has been prescribed for providing an opportunity to parties to reconcile and withdraw petition for dissolution of marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to advance arguments on the issue as to whether, statutory period prescribed u/s 13-B(1) of the Act is mandatory or directory and if directory, whether could be dispensed with even by the High Court in exercise of its writ/appellate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Act before the Family Court, i.e. ADJ-04 (West) Delhi seeking divorce by mutual consent. The said HMA No.456 of 2009 came before the Court and it recorded the statement of parties on 16.11.2009. The parties moved another HMA No. 457 of 2009 to waive the statutory period of six months in filing the second petition. However, the Court rejected the said application vide order dated 1.12.2009 observing that the Court was not competent to waive the required statutory period of six months under the Act and such a waiver was permissible only under the directions of this Court as held by this Court in Anil Kumar Jain v. Maya Jain (2009) 10 SCC 415. Hence, this petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no prohibition in law in entertaining the petition under Article 136 of the Constitution against the order of the Family Court and in such an eventuality, there was no occasion for the petitioner to approach the High Court as the relief sought herein cannot be granted by any court other than this Court. Thus, the petitioner has a right to approach this Court against the order of the Family Court and the petitioner cannot be non-suited on this ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner of Income Tax, West Bengal AIR 1955 SC 65; The Union of India v. Kishorilal Gupta Bros. AIR 1959 SC 1362; Murtaza Sons Anr. v. Nazir Mohd. Khan Ors. AIR 1970 SC 668; Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Hyderabad AIR 1970 SC 1520; The Municipal Corporation, Bhopal v. Misbahul Hasan Ors. AIR 1972 SC 892; Delhi Judicial Service Association, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi v. State of Gujarat and Ors. AIR 1991 SC 2176; Tirupati Balaji Developers Pvt. Ltd. Ors. v. State of Bihar Ors. AIR 2004 SC 2351; and F.G.P. Ltd. v. Saleh Hooseini Doctor (2009) 10 SCC 223). 5. In Union of India Ors. v. Karnail Singh (1995) 2 SCC 728, this court while dealing with the similar issue held as under: It is true that this Court when exercises its discretionary power under Article 136 or passes any order under Article 142, it does so with great care and due circumspection. But, when we are settling the law in exercise of this court's discretion, such law, so settled, should be clear and become operational instead of being kept vague, so that it could become a binding precedent in all similar cases to arise in future. 6. It has been canvassed before us tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the legal ground for grant of divorce is missing, exercising such power tantamounts to legislation and thus transgression of the powers of the legislature, which is not permissible in law (vide Chetan Dass v. Kamla Devi AIR 2001 SC 1709; and Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Manju Sharma (2009) 6 SCC 379). 10. Generally, no Court has competence to issue a direction contrary to law nor the Court can direct an authority to act in contravention of the statutory provisions. The courts are meant to enforce the rule of law and not to pass the orders or directions which are contrary to what has been injected by law. (Vide State of Punjab Ors. v. Renuka Singla Ors (1994) 1 SCC 175; State of U.P. Ors. v. Harish Chandra Ors. AIR 1996 SC 2173; Union of India Anr. v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd. AIR 1996 SC 3285; Vice Chancellor, University of Allahabad Ors. v. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra Ors. (1997) 10 SCC 264; and Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Ashrafulla Khan Ors. AIR 2002 SC 629). 11. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Prem Chand Garg Anr. v. Excise Commissioner, U.P. Ors. AIR 1963 SC 996 held as under: An order which this Court can make in order to do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tution which would amount to supplanting substantive law applicable or ignoring express statutory provisions dealing with the subject, at the same time these constitutional powers cannot in any way, be controlled by any statutory provisions. However, it is to be made clear that this power cannot be used to supplant the law applicable to the case. This means that acting under Article 142, the Supreme Court cannot pass an order or grant relief which is totally inconsistent or goes against the substantive or statutory enactments pertaining to the case. The power is to be used sparingly in cases which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing provisions of law or when the existing provisions of law cannot bring about complete justice between the parties. (Emphasis added) 15. Therefore, the law in this regard can be summarised to the effect that in exercise of the power under Article 142 of the Constitution, this Court generally does not pass an order in contravention of or ignoring the statutory provisions nor the power is exercised merely on sympathy. 16. The instant case requires to be examined in the light of aforesaid settled legal propositions. Parti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
