Court should avoid the nitty gritties in a matrimonial matter: Supreme Court

2. We have heard Mr. Marlapalle learned senior counsel the first petitioner in the SLP) is the husband of the 1st respondent in both these proceedings. They got married at b) After the marriage the couple went to the United States of America and they came back to India in November 2015 c) On 20.12.2015 the 1st respondent­wife filed a criminal herein as well as his parents and other close relatives for charge­sheet was also filed on 20.12.2017. However the proceedings against persons shown as Accused Nos.4 to 6 not the immediate family members of the 1st petitioner­ husband but distant relatives or the country without prior permission of the Court so that he could travel to USA. But the said petition was Therefore the 1st petitioner approached the High Court bail conditions and allowed the 1st petitioner to go to USA after furnishing bank guarantee in a sum of Rs. 3 00 000 ­ Three Lakhs Only) for his appearance as and when called g) Challenging the order of the High Court granting relaxation of the bail conditions the 1st respondent­wife filed j) Blaming the 1st respondent­wife for adopting dilatory period stipulated by this Court the husband has come up with the Contempt petition. On 28.07.2020 notice was It appears that in the meantime the State through the Assistant Public Prosecutor filed a petition before the Trial Criminal Petition No.896 of 2020 under Section 482 CrP.C While entertaining the said petition the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad granted interim stay of further proceedings in the criminal case. Though the High Court posted the criminal petition for final hearing on 06.03.2020 it could not be taken up for hearing. As a result m) Therefore aggrieved by the stay of trial granted by the High Court in Criminal Petition No.896 of 2020 at the instance of the 1st respondent­wife the husband and his The grievance of the petitioner­husband in the Contempt Petition is that after having consented to cooperate in the conclusion of the trial within a period of two months the 1st respondent­wife has been dragging on the matter under some pretext or the other. However the 1st respondent­wife has filed a statement of objections claiming that she is not in any way 5. We do not wish to go into the nitty gritties since it is a matrimonial matter. But we cannot desist from recording our Court have dragged on for the past 15 months after this Court After hearing learned counsel for the parties AJCJ­cum­XXV Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad Kukatpally which was transferred and now pending before the Court of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad Kukatpally shall be concluded 2 expeditiously and in any case not later than two months from the date the appearance of the parties before the in Charge Court since the Court of VIII Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad Kukatapply is 2. The parties are directed to appear before the In charge Court Cyberabad kukatapply on 22.07.2019. 3. This direction is given in view of the peculiar other courts shall stand disposed of without any or criminal against each other or their respective 6. The passport application of respondent No 2 husband may be considered by the passport The special leave petition is disposed of Apart from the party parties responsible for protracting the proceedings it is unfortunate that the State the Trial Court as well persons. This application was filed on the ground that a But the Trial Court dismissed the Application filed by the Prosecutor on 23.01.2020 on the ground that the supplementary charges against A­4 to A­6 have been quashed the reason for seeking recall was not convincing. The Trial Court also recorded that therefore the petition filed by the prosecution was only an As against the well­considered order of the Trial Court the 1strespondent­wife moved a petition before the High Court under not have granted such a stay on 07.02.2020 in the teeth of the long after the filing of the supplementary charge­sheet. She was conclusion of such extensive cross­examination the prosecution 10. Similarly the 1st respondent’s mother was examined as PW­2 Her chief examination took place on 22.10.2019 and her cross­ examination took place on 09.12.2019. There was no re­ 3 and the brother of the 1st respondent was examined as PW­4 These two witnesses were also examined during the very same It appears that after the recording of evidence of all for questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C on 17.01.2020. On 12. Therefore it is surprising that the prosecution filed an they should have spoken about all the facts even in the first instance. After having prevented the 1st petitioner­husband from travelling to USA by inviting an order on consent before this Court neither the parties nor the prosecution should give any room for 13. Our attention was drawn to the certified copies of the deposition of PW­1 PW­2 and PW­4 where the Trial Court has recorded the demeanour of these witnesses. We do not wish to of this Court passed by consent should be discouraged and Contempt Petition in our considered view can be closed without 15. Accordingly the Special Leave Petition and the Contempt

Summary: The SC expressed its displeasure towards the Trial Court and High Court due the delay in time of trial in the case of T.S.K. Ashwin Kumar versus Tubati Srivally &amp; Ors [Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 444 of 2020]. The bench consisting of CJI S.A. Bobde, J. A.S. Bopanna and J. Ramasubramanian heard a contempt petition filed by the petitioner arising out of an order passed by the SC dated 16.07.2019, directing the Trial court to conclude the trial of the case within a period of two months. The case arises out of a criminal complaint filed by the respondent-wife for offences under Section 498A read with Section 120B and Sections 420 and 365 of the IPC. This was filed against the petitioner-husband, his parents and close relatives. The husband being on bail time, approached the HC of Telangana, pleading for the relaxation of his bail conditions which was allowed. Challenging this order, the wife filed an SLP to the SC, which was disposed of. The SC further ordered the Trial court to conclude the trial within 2 months. 15 months having passed, the SC stated that “Apart from the party/parties responsible for protracting the proceedings, it is unfortunate that the State, the Trial Court as well as the High Court have also omitted to take note of the time-frame fixed by this Court”.  The court relied on the circumstances of the case and stated that “The   grievance   of   the   petitioner in   the   Contempt Petition   is   that   after   having   consented   to   cooperate   in   the conclusion   of   the   trial   within   a   period   of   two   months, the   1st respondent wife   has   been   dragging   on   the   matter   under   some pretext or the other.  However, the 1st respondent has filed a statement   of   objections   claiming   that   she   is   not   in   any   way responsible for the delay”. The court expressed that “We do not wish to go into the nitty gritties, since it is a matrimonial   matter.   But   we   cannot   desist   from   recording   our displeasure at the manner in which the proceedings before the Trial Court have dragged on for the past 15 months, after this Court passed an order on 16.07.2019 with the consent of the parties, for the conclusion of the trial within a period of 2 months”.  The court also held that any attempt to overreach the order of this Court passed by consent should be discouraged and deprecated and further ordered the Trial court to dispose of the matter within a period of two months.