Delhi HC sends family court judge for training over divorce ruling

A bench of justices, Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said the judge’s approach undermined judicial conscience and posed a threat to the integrity of the justice delivery system.

The Delhi High Court has ordered family court judge Harish Kumar to undergo refresher training in matrimonial law after sharply criticising him for granting a divorce based on a nonexistent legal provision. A bench of justices, Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, in a verdict dated November 27 and released on Saturday, said the judge’s approach undermined judicial conscience and posed a threat to the integrity of the justice delivery system.

The reprimand came while hearing an appeal filed by a man against a March 28, 2024 order of the family court.

The reprimand came while hearing an appeal filed by a man against a March 28, 2024 order of the family court. In that order, the family court granted a divorce under the Special Marriage Act on the ground of cruelty, even though the woman had filed the petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The judge relied on a proposed amendment introducing irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce by adding section 28A to the SMA, even though the amendment was never notified.

The High Court said the judge had repeatedly invoked the procedural flexibility of the Family Courts Act to bypass substantive requirements of the HMA, including granting mutual consent divorces without verifying statutory compliance. “The overall conduct of the learned Family Court Judge, in this case, demonstrates a troubling lack of understanding of basic legal principles, the proper applicability of statutory provisions, and the jurisdictional boundaries within which a court must operate,” the bench said. It added that relying on a nonexistent section of the SMA was “incomprehensible” and that administrative convenience could not override statutory mandate.

The appellant argued the divorce decree was invalid because his wife filed under the HMA despite their marriage being solemnised under the SMA, and that the judge wrongly invoked an unnotified amendment. The woman opposed the petition, saying the court had simply recognised the practical breakdown of the marriage.

Setting aside the judgement, the High Court directed the Principal Judge, Family Court, to freshly consider the case and noted that the trial court acted in undue haste. The court also criticised the family court judge for observing that marriages under the SMA cannot be regarded as a holy union, calling the remark neither appropriate nor appreciable.