submitted that the applicant has given the said amount to his earlier
Advocate. However his earlier Advocate has failed to deposit the
said amount. But fact remains that as per the undertaking given by
present applicant on 02.12.2014, he has failed to deposit and clear
off all the arrears of maintenance amount. It is open for the present
applicant to take appropriate steps against his earlier advocate if
really he had handed over the amount of maintenance to him.
5. The order dated 02.05.2016 made by the learned Judge
Family Court below Exh.1 shows that the applicant was absent and
despite the sufficient opportunity, he failed to lead the evidence. The
observation shows that in spite of sufficient opportunities granted to
the applicant, it is the applicant who has failed to avail the
opportunities given to him. The learned counsel for the applicant
could not point out anything from the record to show that the
applicant was present before the Family Court. After the applicant
chose not to contest the matter voluntarily despite the chances given
to him by the learned Judge of the Family Court, he should be
thankful to himself. It is very easy before the higher courts to make
allegations against the earlier Advocate without there being anything
on record. This tendency of the litigants of making reckless
allegations behind the back of an Advocate and then claiming relief
from the Court, has to be curbed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.191/2016
Jayant s/o Bhaduji Wasnik,
V
Smt. Swarnalata w/o Jayant Wasnik,
CORAM: V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED : 28.09.2017
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The applicant is original non applicant in the proceeding
bearing Petition No.E296/2014, which is decided by the learned
Judge, Family Court No.3, Nagpur dated 22.08.2016.
As per the impugned order, the present applicant was
directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,000/ per month to the present
non applicant towards maintenance from the date of order i.e. from
22.08.2016.
3. Marriage between the applicant and non applicant was
solemnized on 25.11.2012 at Gurunanak Bhavan, Nagpur. Relations
between the parties are not disputed. It is also not in dispute that the
present non applicant is only a housewife. The submission on the
part of the learned counsel for the applicant is that proper
opportunity was not granted to the present applicant. Therefore, the
applicant was unable to present his case properly before the learned
Judge, Family Court. Therefore, the present revision is required to
be allowed and the matter is required to be remanded back for giving
an opportunity to the applicant.
4. Mr. Dhurve, learned counsel for the non applicant invited
my attention to page no. 11 of the compilation which shows that on
02.12.2014, the present applicant who was non applicant before the
Family Court gave an undertaking before the learned Judge of the
Family Court that he will clear off all interim maintenance amount
before closing the evidence from the side of the present non
applicant/original petitioner. In spite of the said undertaking given
by the present applicant, the amount of arrears were not cleared off
by the non applicant is the statement of the learned counsel for the
non applicant. Mr. Karmarkar, learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that the applicant has given the said amount to his earlier
Advocate. However his earlier Advocate has failed to deposit the
said amount. But fact remains that as per the undertaking given by
present applicant on 02.12.2014, he has failed to deposit and clear
off all the arrears of maintenance amount. It is open for the present
applicant to take appropriate steps against his earlier advocate if
really he had handed over the amount of maintenance to him.
5. The order dated 02.05.2016 made by the learned Judge
Family Court below Exh.1 shows that the applicant was absent and
despite the sufficient opportunity, he failed to lead the evidence. The
observation shows that in spite of sufficient opportunities granted to
the applicant, it is the applicant who has failed to avail the
opportunities given to him. The learned counsel for the applicant
could not point out anything from the record to show that the
applicant was present before the Family Court. After the applicant
chose not to contest the matter voluntarily despite the chances given
to him by the learned Judge of the Family Court, he should be
thankful to himself. It is very easy before the higher courts to make
allegations against the earlier Advocate without there being anything
on record. This tendency of the litigants of making reckless
allegations behind the back of an Advocate and then claiming relief
from the Court, has to be curbed.
6. The learned Judge of the Family Court has rightly
considered the available evidence on record and has rightly granted
the maintenance of Rs.4,000/ in favour of the present non applicant.
No case is made out for interference by the applicant.
In the backdrop of the above discussions, it is clear that
the applicant himself was responsible for not participating in the
proceeding. Not only that he has failed to abide by his own
undertaking given before the learned Judge, Family Court. Hence
the applicant is not entitled to any relief. The revision application is
therefore dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/.
Rule is discharged.
No comments:
Post a Comment