What Is The Special Role That A Family Judge Is Obliged To Discharge As Distinct From General Role Of An Adjudicator? Delhi High Court Answers

The Delhi High Court has enumerated various principles highlighting the special role that a Family Judge is obligated to discharge as distinct from the general role of an adjudicator. In the 54-page judgment, Justice Yashwant Varma also touched upon the essential qualities of a judge or adjudicator and the tests as propounded by the Indian judiciary in relation to an apprehension of bias.While the Court noted that the family jurisprudence has progressed over time, it said that the Family Judge is no longer viewed as one who is to act in the capacity of a mere "fault finder". "Family disputes are no longer liable to be viewed as purely adversarial. Our Courts have over time and as society has evolved over the ages throwing up new challenges along the way, unequivocally recognised the multi-faceted role that a Family Judge is called upon to perform today including that of facilitator, counsellor, mediator, taking a pro-active role in exploring and striving to find common ground, kindle the hope of rapprochement and guide parties towards finding closure to disputes. Marital disputes thus require to be resolved with the Family Judge adopting a more immersive resolution process," the Court observed. The Court was of the view that the Family Judge is obliged to "don a more collaborative robe and not approach the lis as just another legal dispute that arrives before a court for resolution."It observed that the unique function which the Family Judge discharges is required to be approached with empathy bearing in mind that the problem placed before it is not merely another legal conflict but one that deals with the complete breakdown of a family impacting not just the immediate parties to the dispute but various others who are seared by the pall of discord that follows. "It thus places the Family Judge under the added responsibility of approaching parties and the issues that arise for determination with compassion, guiding parties through the entire process in the hope that a just solution would avoid an irretrievable breakdown of the family itself," the Court observed. The Court also observed that the Judge representing the face of the court system must thus appear to be just, even handed, independent and neutral. Further observing that neutrality is one of the fundamental attributes of the justice system, the Court said that the Judge is required to consider and weigh each utterance, every word forming part of the decision ensuring that it embodies and conveys a sense of fairness and neutrality having informed the decision-making process. "The decision of the Court represents the voice of the court itself charged with discharging the divine function of rendering judgment. The observations forming part of the judgment must not therefore give the impression of being based on personal assumptions, biases or preconceived notions. Similarly, the observations as contained in the decision must not have the potential to sully the person or character of a litigant. The language of the judgment must necessarily be tempered by restraint and moderation. A judgment of a court of law cannot become a blistering diatribe against a party or its cause," the Court said. It added "The voice of a Judge must be the voice of prudence, judiciousness and sobriety. A Judge must consequently eschew from entering strident observations which may tend to impinge upon the primordial requirements of impartiality and fairness. While it may be open for Courts to express a doubt about the bona fides of a particular litigant or the motives underlying an action, that too would not warrant virulent observations being made. In any case, a judgment should never transgress the well-established and inherent limitation of not being viewed as an attack on the personal character of a party before the court.""Similarly, while an action may be misconceived, ill-advised or even wholly unsustainable in law, that would also not justify the making of scathing remarks which may convey the impression that the judge let extraneous considerations cloud the overarching and fundamental requirement of being impartial and unprejudiced. It is when the language of the decision tends to convey a departure of the decision maker across the Rubicon of remaining dispassionate, fair and even handed that the question of a reasonable apprehension or a real danger of bias arises."On the aspect of apprehension of bias, the Court was of the view that such apprehension can neither be founded on imagination nor can it rest merely on the fact that an adverse decision was rendered. It said that the apprehension would have to be tested from the viewpoint of an ordinary person and whether the material would legitimately give rise to a doubt of whether the judge or the adjudicator would have the ability to decide impartially and fairly.The Court was dealing with a plea seeking transfer of proceedings pending before the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court Saket. The parties were stated ...

What Is The Special Role That A Family Judge Is Obliged To Discharge As Distinct From General Role Of An Adjudicator? Delhi High Court Answers

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags