The manner in which some officers in the Supreme Court (SC) Registry dealt with the proceedings of a transfer petition filed by a woman belonging to Srikakulam district on divorce sought by her husband and the consequent passage of an ex-parte decree by the Principal Judge of Srikakulam Family Court that resulted in the dissolution of the marriage when an ad-interim stay imposed earlier by the Apex Court on April 28, 2023 is in force incurred the wrath of Justice Sandeep Mehta of the Supreme Court on November 27.

The Supreme Court judge observed that owing to the indifference and lackadaisical approach at different levels, grave prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, Kalabarigi Pratyusha, for no fault of hers, and felt that she cannot be left without remedy and made to suffer on account of the manifest errors on part of the SC Registry and the lackadaisical approach of the presiding officers concerned.

Personal appearance ordered

Justice Mehta directed that the effect and operation of the judgment and the decree passed by the Family Court Judge-cum-III Additional District & Sessions Judge of Srikakulam dated March 10, 2024 be stayed, and a notice be served to the respondent (Ms. Pratyusha’s husband Panuganti Srinivas Rao, who hails from Rangareddy district in Telangana) to be personally present on the next date of listing of the transfer petition (December 10).

Besides, Justice Mehta ordered that a copy of his stay order be forwarded to the Registrars General of the Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Courts for placing it before the respective Chief Justices.

Prompt action

Since the marital dispute is related to parties belonging to two States, Ms. Pratyusha filed a petition in the SC seeking transfer of the case to the Family Court in Srikakulam, and the Judge of the RR District Family Court had immediately upon receiving the SC stay order copy withdrew the proceedings from the file of the said court and transferred it to the Srikakulam Family Court even before an order by the SC to transfer the proceedings was issued and subsequently the Srikakulam Family Court went on to pass the decree.

On close perusal of the records, Justice Mehta found from the office of the Assistant Registrar of SC that a ‘branch officer’ and a ‘dealing assistant’ failed to place the office reports before him (the judge) due to an inadvertent lapse, which led to the passing of the decree on the basis of material that was not available in its entirety. 

Appearing for Ms. Pratyusha, senior advocate Jandhyala Ravi Shankar informed the judge that he filed an application under the Code of Civil Procedure in Srikakulam Family Court with a prayer to set aside the ex-parte decree dated March 10, 2024. Taking a serious note of it all,  Justice Mehta said what transpired revealed a very sorry state of affairs involving negligence and that the decree was in the teeth of his stay order as there was a clear mandate that precluded the Srikakulam Family Court from proceeding further in the matter.