'It Is The Duty Of HC To See Matters Are Taken Up And Decided': SC Says In A Case Where A 79-Year-Old Woman Faced 15 Adjournment In A Domestic Violence Matter

In a matter where 15 adjournments were granted by the Bombay High Court, the Supreme Court has observed that being a Constitutional Court it is the duty of the High Court to see that the matters are taken up and decided.While finding it 'problematic' to examine what kind of direction to issue to the High Court, a Bench comprising Justice SK Kaul and Justice MM Sundresh observed that 15 adjournments can by no stretch of imagination said to constitute a reasonable indulgence to the parties.The Bench observed that while normally, on a mere adjournment the court would loath to interfere, but the number of adjournments granted requires the Court to say something. The Bench, therefore, observed that it expects the High Court on the next date of hearing to bestow consideration on the matter and not permit any adjournment as a remedy cannot be made infructuous especially when the Supreme Court itself has transferred the matters to the High Court with the objective of expeditious disposal.'We say no more but we think we have said enough,' the Bench said. In the present case, the Bench observed that multifarious proceedings initiated by the daughter-in-law of the petitioner are not receiving a quietus and the petitioner mother in law is feeling disturbed in living at her own residence, her husband having passed away in the meantime though he was party to the original proceedings.The Bench noted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner mother-in-law is pending before the Bombay High Court in which notice is stated to have been issued and the Supreme Court also transferred the matters to the High Court on 13.07.2020.The grievance of the present petitioner is that at the age of 79 she is unable to keep on facing adjournments. On 15 occasions, the daughter-in-law has managed an adjournment before the High Court while she continues to reside in the property of the petitioner and the relationship is such that the petitioner continues to feel threatened. The Bench was considering a special leave petition challenging Bombay High Court's order adjourning the case to April 2022.The proceedings before the High Court were instituted by the daughter-in-law against the order of the Presiding Offer of the Maintenance & Welfare of Parents & Senior Citizen directing her and her husband to handover the possession of the disputed residential bungalow to her in-laws.Case Title: Nalini Mahendra Shah v Sheetal D Shah, SLP (C) 2575/2022Click Here To Read/Download Order

'It Is The Duty Of HC To See Matters Are Taken Up And Decided': SC Says In A Case Where A 79-Year-Old Woman Faced 15 Adjournment In A Domestic Violence Matter

Srishti Ojha

Tags