LexSMT. POONAM versus SUMIT TANWAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 557 SMT. POONAM v. SUMIT TANWAR (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 86 of 2010) MARCH 22, 2010 [AFTAB ALAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.] CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: A B Articles 32 and 142 - Writ petition against order of Family c Court by which it asked the parties to abide by s.13-8(2) of Hindu Marriage Act - HELD: Is not maintainable - Judicial orders passed by courts are not amenable to be corrected by issuing a writ under Article 32 - Remedy of a person aggrieved by decision of a judicial tribunal is to approach the D superior tribunal for redress and such decision cannot be circumvented by resorting to Article 32 - Family Court passed the order strictly in accordance with law and it cannot be said that the order has infringed any of the fundamental/legal rights of parties - Besides, it is not generally assumed that a judicial E decision passed by a court would violate any fundamental right of a party- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - ss. 13-8(1) and (2) - ~udgment. · Article 32 and 226 read with Article 12 - Writ jurisdiction of Supreme Court and High Courts - Scope of - Explained. F ADMIN/STRA TION OF JUSTICE: Advocate - Responsibility of - Failure of counsel to render assistance to Court - HELD: In case counsel for the petitioner is not able to render any assistance, Court may G decline to entertain the petition - If a factual/legal issue is not raised, court should not decide the same as its decision may be violative of principles of natural justice - In the instant 557 H 558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 3 S.C.R. A case, petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging order of Family Court in a petition uls 13-8(1) of Hindu Marriage Act asking the parties to wait for six months was filed without any sense of responsibility either by the parties or their counsel - The proxy Advocates as well as the Advocate- s on-Record, were unable to explain as to how the writ petition was maintainable - Such a practice is tantamount to not only disservice to the institution, but it also affects the administration of justice - Conduct of all of them has been reprehensible - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - ss.13-8(1) and c (2) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 32 and 142 - Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - Orders IV and XVIII - Advocate-on-Record - Practice and Procedure - Natural Justice. The parties got married on 30.11.2008. On 9.9.2009 D a petition u/s 13-B (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed. The Family Court by its order dated 25.11.2009 held that the marriage could not be dissolved straightaway and observed that the parties could file the petition of second motion uls 13-8(2) of the Act. Aggrieved, the wife E filed the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Dismissing the petition, the Court F HELD: 1.1. It is settled legal proposition that the remedy of a person aggrieved by the decision of the competent judicial Tribunal is to approach for redress a superior Tribunal, if there is any, and that order cannot be circumvented by resorting to an application for a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution. Relief under Article G 32 can be for enforcing a right conferred by Part Ill of the Constitution and only on the proof of infringement thereof. If by adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction, the right claimed has been negatived, a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is not H POONAM v. SUMIT TANWAR 559 maintainable. It is not generally assumed that a judicial A decision pronounced by a court may violate any of the fundamental rights of a party. Judicial orders passed by courts in or in relation to proceedings pending before them are not amenable to be corrected by issuing a writ under Article 32. [Para 9] [566-F-H] B Sahibzada Saiyed Muhammed Amirabbas Abbasi & Ors. vs. the State of Madhya Bharat (now Madhya Pradesh) & Ors. 1960 SCR 138 = AIR 1960 SC 768; Smt. Ujjam Bai vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 1963 SCR 778 =AIR 1962 SC 1621; and Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar vs. State of C Maharashtra 1966 SCR 744 =AIR 1967 SC 1, referred to. 1.2. The citizens are entitled to appropriate relief under the provisions of Article 32 of the Constitution, provided it is shown to the satisfaction of the Court that o a fundamental right of the petitioner had been violated. The distinction between a writ petition under Article 226 and the one under Article 32 of the Constitution is that the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.