The Bombay High Court has fined a woman Rs 15,000 after she requested the court to instruct the family court to expedite the decision on her execution application within a month.

A petition filed by the woman, who had secured an order from the Royal High Courts of London in October 2021, was heard by a single-judge bench of the high court, with Justice Sharmila Deshmukh presiding over the case.

The woman submitted an execution application to the family court to enforce the order issued by the Royal High Court. Although the London court resolved her custody plea within six months, the execution application lingered in the family court until 2022. In response, she sought the intervention of the high court to hasten the resolution of her application, aiming for a decision within a month.

In its ruling, the high court acknowledged the significant caseload and limited number of judges, with only seven family court judges for the entire city of Mumbai. The court recognized the efforts of the family court judges in handling cases and emphasized that they adhere to necessary legal procedures, which are inherently time-consuming. The order stated that the plea to decide the execution application within a month is deemed highly unreasonable given the procedural requirements and the volume of cases.

The bench reiterated the importance of advocates being sensitive to the operational challenges faced by the Family Court, highlighting that the court's docket typically includes 60 to 70 matters listed daily. 

The court underscored the necessity for the legal bar to be mindful of the operational realities, noting that the Family Court's docket routinely comprises 60 to 70 matters each day. Additionally, the order highlighted that beyond regular court hours, judges, including those at the Family Court, are tasked with delivering judgments, providing dictations, and rectifying orders. The court expressed concern that the application to expedite the resolution of a 2022 matter within one month was made without due sensitivity to these practical challenges and time constraints.

The bench went on to reject the petition and instructed the woman to pay a sum of Rs 15,000 to the District Legal Services Authority.

Case: Bhawana Thadhaney vs Vicky Kripalani.