Published on: March 10, 2022 at 18:43 IST
The Supreme Court observed that being a Constitutional Court it the duty of the High Court to see that matters are taken up and decided. It observed this in relation to the Case where 15 Adjournments were granted by the Bombay High Court.
The Bench comprised Justices SK Kaul and MM Sundresh. It was considering a Special Leave Petition challenging the Order of Bombay High Court which adjourned the Case to April 2022.
It observed that 15 Adjournments cannot constitute a reasonable indulgence to the parties. It further observed that on a mere Adjournment, the Court would loath to interfere; but the Court is required to say something when there are number of Adjournments.
Therefore, it stated that it expects the High Court to bestow consideration on the matter at the next Hearing. Any Adjournment cannot be permitted as a remedy when the Supreme Court itself transferred the matters to the High Court for expeditious Disposal.
The Bench stated, “We say no more but we think we have said enough.”
In this Case, it was observed by the Court that the Daughter-in-law of the Petitioner is initiating multifarious Proceedings continuously and the Petitioner (Mother-in-law) is feels disturbed while living at her own residence.
In the meantime, her Husband, who was party to the Original Proceedings, passed away.
It was noted by the Bench that the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner was pending before the Bombay High Court in which Notice has also been issued. The matter was transferred to the High Court on July 13, 2020 by the Supreme Court.
The Petitioner’s grievance is that she is unable to face the Adjournments at the age of 79. The Daughter-in-law managed an Adjournment before the High Court 15 times. She still continues to reside in the Petitioner’s property and the relationship is such that the Petitioner feels threatened.
The Daughter-in-law had initiated the Proceedings before the High Court against the Order of the Presiding Officer of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen.
The Order had directed the Daughter-in-law and her Husband to handover the possession of the disputed residential bungalow to her in-laws.