The Delhi High Court in the case Narender Bhutani v. Anjali Bhutani observed and has directed its Registry to register the case of criminal contempt which being against a man for making scandalous allegations against the Principal Judge of a family court in the national capital
The bench headed by Justice Navin Chawla in the case observed and has stated that the registry is directed to register the case of Criminal Contempt which is against the petitioner and is subject to the orders of the Hon’ble Chief Justice. Thus, the same needs to be placed before the appropriate Division Bench of this Court.
The court in the case observed that the husband was in the habit of making scandalous remarks which being against the judges in order to browbeat them.
Further, the court directed the man to appear in person before the division bench on September 1, 2023.
It has also been stated by the said court that this court is of the view that the petitioner is in the habit of making scandalous remarks against the Presiding Officers of the Courts in order to browbeat them, and generally
The bench of Justice Chawla in the case was dealing with the plea moved on the reference received from the Principal Judge, Family Courts, Rohini Courts whereby the judge had seek transfer of the matrimonial dispute pending before it to some other court of competent jurisdiction.
It has been stated by the Principal Judge that the application moved by the husband was being drafted if an offensive and intemperate manner and also seeks the recusal and transfer.
The bench of Justice Chawla in the case observed that the husband, in his written submissions filed on 15.07.2023 had made various scandalous and offensive remarks against the judge.
The court stated that the petitioner further makes the reference to the complaints against some employees of the Court, who are not and has admittedly, posted with the learned Principal Judge.
It has also been submitted by him that an inquiry against these employees is going on before the said Court.
However, the reference itself records that the said complaints have already been disposed of after an inquiry by the Vigilance Committee of the Family Courts.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case noted that the husband had been making repeated scandalous remarks against various other courts, forcing judges to transfer the cases to some other courts.
The bench stated that merely because the petitioner, who appears in person, makes scandalous remarks against the Judge, the learned Principal Judge should not have sought her recusal from the cases and seek for the transfer of the same to another Judge.
Accordingly, the court rejected the request of the judge to transfer the matter to some other court.