The Supreme Court in the case Vinit Vilas Vaidya vs. Manjiri Vinit Vaidya observed and has expressed its displeasure on its Registry for failing to comply with its specific direction to draw a decree of divorce. It is appropriate to mention that under this decree, more than ten proceedings were disposed of by mutual consent. The said direction was not complied with for more than five months.
The bench comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan in the case observed and has expressed its dismay and has noted that ‘it shows the sorry state of affairs.’
The court noted that the decree is of divorce under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and more than 10 proceedings were disposed of under the said decree. Thus, in the said case, the parties immediately require a certified copy of the decree. However, the decree was not drawn for a period of more than 5 months.
Facts of the Case
An appeal arising out of the matrimonial dispute was disposed of last September after recording the settlement terms.
The Supreme Court had specifically asked the Registry to draw a decree. However, the same was not done for several months. Following this, the Registrar, Judicial Listing was called upon on February 12 to submit a report explaining the delay.
Therefore, the report was submitted along with the explanation by various staff members.
The Division bench perused the reports, when the matter was taken up on March 01.
The court in the case observed that one of the excuses was that the original settlement terms were misplaced. Thus, the court strongly rebuked this and recorded that this court fails to understand how the Registry can refuse to draw the decree on the ground that the original settlement terms were not available.
The court stated that where there is an order of the Court to draw a decree in a particular manner, it was the duty of the Registry to do so.
Further, the court observed that report had termed the same as totally incorrect. Thus, the said report mentioned that the terms were, in fact, forwarded by the Court Master but were misplaced.
It has also been state din the report that even the said excuse was totally incorrect, as the settlement terms were forwarded by the Court Master which were misplaced due to no fault of the Court Master of this Court.
The court also pressed on the seriousness of this issue and observed that the Supreme Court while exercising its inherent power, put an end to matrimonial disputes.
The court passed several orders and proceedings between the couple are quashed while a divorce decree is granted. However, unless the decree is made available, the Court’s order is of no use to the parties.
It has also been stated by the said court that the staff members had expressed regret, the Court decided not to take action against them.
The Registrar was directed to ensure no delay in drawing the decrees.
Adding to it, the court stated that the Handbook of Practice and Procedure provides for drawing a decree within one week and no further directions are required.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed and has noted that the decree in the present case has now been drawn. In view of this, the Registry was asked to provide a certified copy of the decree to the parties as soon as possible.
