Whether litigant can be granted relief if he makes allegation against his advocate behind his back?

 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.
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.