Judiciary has betrayed India, its constitution and its freedom fighters

1. Go to https://districts.ecourts.gov.in/rohini

2. Right pane, Services -> Case Status -> Act which will open 
https://services.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindia_v4_bilingual/cases/s_actwise.php?state=D&state_cd=26&dist_cd=5

3. Select Court complex as "Rohini Court complex". In Search act textbox, type "guardian" and click search. In Act type dropdown, choose "Guardian and wards act, 1890"

4. Hit Go after captcha etc.

You will see GP/xx/yyyy with party names hidden like in table at the bottom. Ignore the cases where party names are seen, those are different property related matters.

 Section 7, 9, 25 are for child custody. 

Let's try out GP/69/2021. 

Principal Judge Family Court, North West, RHC

: GP - GUARDIAN CASES
: 2335/2021: 08-11-2021

: DLNW04-003120-2021


Case Status





Petitioner and Advocate

1) XXXXXXX
    Advocate- ML RAM


Respondent and Advocate

1) XXXXXXX


Acts

Under Act(s)Under Section(s)
Guardian and Wards Act, 189025

Case History


Registration NumberJudgeBusiness on DateHearing DatePurpose of Hearing
69/2021Judge Family Court01-12-202101-02-2022Misc.cases/purpose
69/2021Judge Family Court01-02-202229-09-2022Misc.cases/purpose

This person was the 69th person in whole year 2021 to approach court under GWA. He managed to submit his case file around October and his file was accepted on 8th November (about 2-3 weeks after submitting in this court) and put up for first hearing on 1st December, 2021 (always in less than 4 weeks).

On first hearing, sometimes judge can be on leave etc. Nothing happens. You're just asked to submit the pf (process fee) for issuing of summons.

His second hearing was on 1st Feb 2022. Courts are not passing any orders due to covid and not even giving interim visitation orders until the other party appears and present their stand. Court would have just told to reissue summons to opposite party. One holding the child is not going to turn up in court for 2 years and our courts don't care. 

The next date given is 29th Sep 2022. After 8 months. The lucky ones are getting after 7 months and unlucky ones are getting after 9 months. The enterprising ones can actually make a brand new baby in this time period. That's why, so few people approach court in time sensitive matters where child access is required immediately before you lose the bond permanently and just gets pain and pain besides losing lacs of money.

The story repeats for any other case as well. In december, court was giving april/may dates. In January july/aug. Starting feb, they are handing out sep/nov dates. It's COLLAPSE OF JUDICIARY.

These are not 73 GP cases in 2021 but 73 murders done by this court of a parent who approached the court hoping for justice and murders of children who have lost on love of one of their parents. Going by statistics, out of 73, 90-95% should be fathers only.

Did you just tell me to tell the court about Judgment X of telnagana or Y of Justice Krishna kumar or SC judgments where it is held that separation from either parents is against welfare of child, causes him psychological harm, emotional trauma and what not including giving interim visitation within 30 days even if the person does not apply!! It's just judgments. What art 32? art 21? art 14? Only Nundys are allowed to talk on it. Others are shut up before they can open their mouth. We saw that live few days back with MWT in HC when whole country was watching. The truth is Judiciary has betrayed India and is not providing justice but writing judgments depending on their mood after 15-20 years when no one has any interest in the judgment and just appear for formality.



Principal Judge Family Court, North West, RHC
25GP/9/2022XXXXXXX
versus
XXXXXXX		Viewdetails for case number 204500000092022
26GP/8/2022XXXXXXX
versus
XXXXXXX		Viewdetails for case number 204500000082022
27GP/7/2022XXXXXXX
versus
XXXXXXX		Viewdetails for case number 204500000072022
28GP/6/2022XXXXXXX
versus
XXXXXXX		Viewdetails for case number 204500000062022
29GP/5/2022XXXXXXX
versus
XXXXXXX		Viewdetails for case number 204500000052022
30GP/4/2022XXXXXXX
versus
XXXXXXX		Viewdetails for case number 204500000042022
31GP/3/2022XXXXXXX
versus
XXXXXXX		Viewdetails for case number 204500000032022
32GP/2/2022XXXXXXX
versus
XXXXXXX		Viewdetails for case number 204500000022022
33GP/1/2022XXXXXXX
versus
XXXXXXX		Viewdetails for case number 204500000012022
34GP/73/2021XXXXXXX
versus
XXXXXXX		Viewdetails for case number 204500000732021
35GP/71/2021XXXXXXX
versus
XXXXXXX		Viewdetails for case number 204500000712021
36GP/70/2021XXXXXXX
versus
XXXXXXX		Viewdetails for case number 204500000702021
37GP/69/2021XXXXXXX
versus
XXXXXXX		Viewdetails for case number 204500000692021
38GP/68/2021XXXXXXX
versus
XXXXXXX		Viewdetails for case number 204500000682021
39GP/67/2021XXXXXXX
versus
XXXXXXX		Viewdetails for case number 204500000672021
40GP/66/2021XXXXXXX
versus
XXXXXXX		Viewdetails for case number 204500000662021
41GP/65/2021XXXXXXX
versus
XXXXXXX		Viewdetails for case number 204500000652021
42GP/64/2021XXXXXXX
versus
XXXXXXX		Viewdetails for case number 204500000642021
43GP/63/2021XXXXXXX
versus
XXXXXXX		Viewdetails for case number 204500000632021
44GP/62/2021XXXXXXX
versus
XXXXXXX		Viewdetails for case number 204500000622021
45GP/61/2021XXXXXXX
versus
XXXXXXX		Viewdetails for case number 204500000612021
46GP/60/2021XXXXXXX
versus
XXXXXXX		Viewdetails for case number 204500000602021
47GP/59/2021XXXXXXX
versus
XXXXXXX		Viewdetails for case number 204500000592021
48GP/58/2021XXXXXXX
versus
XXXXXXX		Viewdetails for case number 204500000582021
49GP/57/2021XXXXXXX
versus
XXXXXXX		Viewdetails for case number 204500000572021
50GP/56/2021XXXXXXX
versus
XXXXXXX		Viewdetails for case number 204500000562021
51GP/55/2021XXXXXXX
versus
XXXXXXX		Viewdetails for case number 204500000552021
52GP/54/2021XXXXXXX
versus
XXXXXXX		Viewdetails for case number 204500000542021
53GP/53/2021XXXXXXX
versus
XXXXXXX		Viewdetails for case number 204500000532021
54GP/52/2021XXXXXXX
versus
XXXXXXX		Viewdetails for case number 204500000522021
55GP/51/2021XXXXXXX
versus
XXXXXXX		View

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chargesheet Vs final report / A, B, C Summary report

Maharashtra police rules as defined in  Bombay Police Manual, 1959, Volume III [referred as The Manual below],   defines two types of police reports which can be submitted to the magistrate by police u/s 173(2) of CrPC. It is the report of police investigation filed at the end of investigation.. a. Charge-sheets (Rule 218 of The Manual) and  b. Final Reports (Rule 219 of Police Manual).  Final report is explained under Rule 219 of The Manual. Rule 219 of The Manual: 219. Final Reports .- (1) When there is no sufficient evidence to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, the Police Station Officer or the investigating officer will release the accused person on bail, if he is in custody. (2) The Police Station Officer will then submit a final report to the Magistrate empowered to take cognisance of an offence on a Police report through the Superintendent of Police or the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, as the case may be, in the following three class...
Read more

Judgment Analysis : Yashita Sahu Vs State of Rajasthan (with translation in Punjabi)

Judgment Name : YASHITA SAHU Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS  Citation Code :   (2020) 3 SCC 67 Judgment link :  https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/28083/28083_2019_15_1501_19699_Judgement_20-Jan-2020.pdf Court : Supreme Court of India Case Type : CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  127 OF 2020 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. 7390 OF 2019) Judge : Hon'ble Justice Sh. Deepak Gupta  (author of judgment) Hon'ble Justice Sh. Aniruddha Bose Summary: This judgment talks about  1) Court treats the child as "human" which is shocking (sarcasm :|) and talks about the human rights of a child to get love and affection from both Parent. It talks about the rights of a parent as well as the rights of a child to get "s ufficient visitation rights" . 2) If any court denies the visitation to a parent, a strong reason should also be assigned and can be justified only unde...
Read more

Ad-interim vs interim orders (Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC)

  Rule 1 or Rule 2 of Order 39 are repository of the power to grant injunction.  An order of injunction is always passed under Rule 1 or Rule 2 Order 39 save and except rare orders passed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.  Rule 1 and Rule 2 of Order 39 do not use the words "interim or ad interim". These are the words coined by the lawyers and the courts merely to indicate the stage at which orders are passed.  Interim order usually remains in force for whole of the period of the suit unless varied under Rule 4 or set aside in appeal.  Ad interim order operates only till the hearing of the application for injunction.  Usually, ad interim order is passed ex parte though it can also be passed when otherwise is present.  It is possible that in a given case at the time of institution of a suit, the plaintiff does not make an application for an order of interim injunction as he feels no necessity in which case only summons of the suit is issu...
Read more