The Delhi High Court has overturned three family court orders in a custody case after noting the behavior of the judge, who shared his personal contact number with the parties and met one of them in the chambers. The court asked the Chief Justice of the Southeast District Family Court to take up the case.
A single chamber of the Supreme Court found that it had no doubts about the judge’s integrity, neutrality and judicial independence, but said his conduct raised “reasonable concerns of bias”.
“Judges must constantly remind themselves that all conduct is observed and acknowledged by the litigants and therefore they must not knowingly or unknowingly act in a manner which casts even the slightest doubt on the part of the litigants and counsel. ‘ said Judge Dinesh Kumar Sharma.
🚨 Limited time offer | Express Premium with Ad-Lite for only Rs 2/day 👉🏽 Click here to login 🚨
The best of Express Premium
bonus
bonus
bonus
bonus
The court said the orders issued on August 21 and December 22, 2021 and March 4 of this year could be overturned in the interests of the judiciary and for the purpose of restoring both parties’ confidence in the system and in the interests of the judiciary.
The child’s mother had appealed to the High Court against the order preventing her from taking her daughter away from Delhi and asked for the case to be referred to another court in the Southeast District. She later also appealed against the final decision of the family court in the guardianship application.
On March 4, the family court had granted the father visitation rights for every Wednesday and Friday and overnight stays for the minor every second and fourth Saturday. The Family Court also issued orders regarding holidays, long vacations and compulsory schooling for the child under the age of three.
In the High Court petition, the mother claimed that the rule created by the lower court focuses solely on the rights of the father and his family and ignores the comforts of the child.
She also told the court that the family court judge shared his personal cell phone number with the parties during the proceedings and the child’s father met the judge unilaterally in his chamber. Judge Sharma noted that it was inadvisable for the judge to do so.
“It is a well-established principle that justice is not only to be practiced, but also to be perceived as such. The conduct of the judge during the conduct of the trial should be decent,” the bank said.
The chamber also changed the provisional regulation of the father’s visitation rights.
“The Chief Judge, the Family Court, is asked to rule on the said guardianship application as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks. The experienced family court judge may also enlist the support of the child counselor and interact with the child before making a decision on visitation rights,” the bank said.
Comments are closed.