Judicial Review Of Film Reviews

Recently, a film director filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court to direct Union of India (Ministry of I&B), CBFC etc. to issue a “gag order” to ensure that social media influencers and film reviewing vloggers do not publish any reviews of his movie “Aromalinte Adyathe Pranayam” on social media for at least seven days from the date of release of the film.

A Division Bench of Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar, while dismissing the appeal, held, “The scheme of the D.V.Act is such that an aggrieved person is ensured more effective protection through the forum of a criminal court. The D.V.Act was enacted much after the Family Courts Act, 1984 came into force. The Legislature, fully conscious of the provisions of the Family Courts Act, had enacted the D.V.Act in 2005 creating a special forum by investing powers on Judicial Magistrates to deal with the applications under Section 12 and also creating a Court of Session as the appellate forum under Section 29. The intention of the Legislature to confine the jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act to the Judicial Magistrates is clear from provisions in the Act. As long as the Family Court or, for that matter, other civil courts cannot have original jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, no application under

The Court’s observations highlighted the appellant’s previous conduct in the legal proceedings. It noted instances where the appellant had failed to participate actively in the case, leading to repeated delays. Notably, the divorce proceedings initiated in 2014 witnessed a series of missed opportunities and non-appearance by the appellant, resulting in significant delays that extended over seven years. Despite attempts by the appellant to cite reasons for the delay, including claims of illness supported by medical papers, the Court found insufficient evidence to justify the prolonged delay in filing the recall application from November 2021 to July 2022.

“Under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, the Court has been empowered to pass any order or make any arrangement in respect of custody, maintenance and education of children during the pendency of the proceedings or after any decree is passed under the Act. The orders made under this section can be varied, suspended or revoked from time to time. The object of this section is to make just and proper provision for the welfare of minor child,” it said. The ruling came on a plea seeking setting aside of an order issued by the Principal Judge of the Family Court in Patna in a matrimonial case. The court had directed the petitioner-husband to hand over custody of their minor child to the respondent-wife.

Giving this direction a Bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V. Gopala Gowda said adjournments granted by the Family courts in an extremely liberal manner were against the objects and reasons of the Family Courts Act. It said inordinate delay in deciding the disputes by the Family Courts would amount to exhibiting absolute insensitivity to the condition of a wife, who, after loosing support of the husband had to wait for years to get her maintenance. Writing the judgment Justice Misra said “delaying the adjudication and not awarding maintenance to the wife would not only defeat the command of the legislature but also frustrate the hope of wife and children who are deprived of adequate livelihood and whose aspirations perish like mushroom and possibly the brief candle of sustenance joins the marathon race of extinction. This delay in adjudication by the Family Court is not only against human rights but also against the basic embodiment of dignity of an individual. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity.”

The Bench said “It has come to the notice of the Court that on certain occasions the Family Courts have been granting adjournments in a routine manner as a consequence of which both the parties suffer or, on certain occasions, the wife becomes the worst victim. When such a situation occurs, the purpose of the law gets totally atrophied. The Family Judge is expected to be sensitive to the issues, for he is dealing with extremely delicate and sensitive issues pertaining to the marriage and issues ancillary thereto. Dilatory tactics by any of the parties has to be sternly dealt with, for the Family Court Judge has to be alive to the fact that the lis before him pertains to emotional fragmentation and delay can feed it to grow. We hope and trust that the Family Court Judges shall remain alert to this and decide the matters as expeditiously as possible.