In the present case, the Family Court is dealing with the petition for dissolution of marriage filed by the petitioner under Section 13(1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and therefore, Justice J.R. Midha observed that the petitioner’s application under Section 26 of the D.V. Act seeking reliefs under Section 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the D.V. Act is maintainable before the Family Court.
The Important findings of the Delhi High Court are given below:
- The proper procedure for disposal of the petitioner’s application under Section 26 of the D.V. Act after completion of pleadings is to consider whether evidence is necessary to adjudicate the petitioner’s application under Section 26 of the D.V. Act.
- If the Court finds that the evidence is not necessary, the Court shall list the application for hearing. However, if the evidence is considered necessary, the Court shall frame the issues and record the evidence along with the evidence in the divorce petition.
- The respondent’s defence before the Family Court as well as this Court that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner’s application under Section 26 of the D.V. Act, is frivolous and is rejected.
- The respondent attempted to mislead this Court by raising a frivolous defence with respect to the nature of proceedings under Section 26 of the D.V. Act whereas the law is clear and well settled that the Civil Court, Family Court and Criminal Court have jurisdiction to entertain and try an application under Section 26 in pending proceedings affecting the parties and the Court can formulate its own procedure to conduct the proceedings.
Here in the Philippines, a law in the name of R.A. 9262 or also known as "An act against violence against women and their children." is a law which prohibits husbands to abuse their wives and their children which is considered by Filipino attorneys as an evidence to the court.
ReplyDelete