Woman Appeals to Supreme Court After Patna High Court Fails to Deliver Judgment Reserved in 2017
In a stark illustration of delayed justice, a woman from Patna, weary of an interminable wait, has fervently petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene and conclude her prolonged legal ordeal. The case stems from a divorce decree obtained by her husband in 2012 from a Patna family court, which accused her of cruelty at home. She subsequently challenged this decree before the Patna High Court, seeking its annulment.
Judicial Delays and Administrative Hurdles
The Patna High Court bench, comprising Justices Ravi Ranjan and S Kumar, concluded hearing arguments from both parties on December 6, 2017, and reserved its verdict. However, the judgment was never pronounced. Justice Ranjan was appointed as Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court on November 17, 2019, and Justice Kumar retired on October 21, 2022. These developments rendered the reserved verdict infructuous, necessitating a fresh hearing before a new bench.
In response, the woman filed an application with the High Court, requesting an expeditious fresh hearing of her 2012 petition. A division bench of Justices P B Bajanthri and B P Singh took up this application on April 11 last year, nearly eight years after the verdict was reserved. The bench directed the registry to seek necessary orders from the Acting Chief Justice to list the matter before the concerned roster bench. Despite this, neither the Acting Chief Justice nor the new Chief Justice S K Sahoo, who assumed office in January this year, have taken steps to schedule a hearing.
Supreme Court Expresses Disappointment and Issues Directive
Frustrated by the lack of progress, the woman's counsel approached the Supreme Court, presenting her case before a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi. The counsel emphasized that the Supreme Court is her last hope for justice.
The Supreme Court bench expressed significant disappointment at the perceived lack of sensitivity among High Courts regarding matrimonial disputes. Highlighting the urgency of such cases, the bench stated that matrimonial disputes should be resolved promptly to prevent prolonged suffering for the parties involved.
In a decisive move, the Supreme Court carved out an exception in this instance. It requested the Patna High Court to list the case urgently for hearing and directed the new bench to decide the matter within three weeks. This directive underscores the judiciary's commitment to addressing delays and ensuring timely justice, particularly in sensitive family matters.
This case highlights systemic issues in judicial administration, where transfers and retirements can lead to prolonged delays, leaving litigants in limbo. The Supreme Court's intervention serves as a reminder of the need for efficient case management and prioritization of disputes that impact personal lives.
