AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.M. Abdul Wahab, J.—The allegations in paragraph 9 of the affidavit filed in support of the transfer petition would go to show that the
presiding officer has received a report from her staff, with reference to the truth of adultery. This is not denied by the respondent. Such a
procedure is very strange.
The learned Counsel for the respondent points out that as per Section 10(3) of the Family Courts Act 1984, the family court is permitted to lay
down its own procedure with a view to arrive at a settlement or arrive at truth of facts. The subsection contemplates laying down a procedure
which has to be followed in all cases. It does not mean that the court can lay down sub-rules and procedure for each and every case. The learned
Counsel for the respondent is not in a position to assert that the procedure adopted by the family court is pursuant to such a procedure already laid
down by the court as a general guidance for the disposal of the family matters. Therefore, in my view, the evidence collected cannot be admitted as
evidence since the evidence collected through the officer of the court will be given more weight than the evidence likely to be let in by the other
party. Some prejudice is likely to be caused to the other party in the procedure adopted by the family court. Hence, in the interest of justice to all
the parties concerned, the matter has to be transferred to some other court.
The learned Counsel for the respondent states that the First Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai is the proper forum, In the circumstances,
the Family Court at Madurai is directed to transfer the H.M.O.P.No. 55 of 1998 from its file to the first Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai
for disposal. The First Additional Subordinate Court at Madurai is directed to dispose of the main H.M.O.P.No. 55 of 1998 within a period of
four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, counsel appearing on both sides have no objection for taking all the petitions along with
the main O.P., this petition is ordered on the above terms. Consequently, C.M.P.No. 9273 of 1998 is closed