News Updates

Bombay HC Imposes Costs On Litigant For Levelling Reckless Allegations Against Previous Lawyer [Read Judgment]

Nitish Kashyap
3 Oct 2017 4:33 AM GMT
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 25,000 on a litigant who failed to comply with his own undertaking of giving a monthly maintenance to his wife and blamed his previous advocate for it.

Justice VM Deshpande was hearing a criminal revision application filed by one Jayant Wasnik against an order of the Nagpur family court, dated August 22, 2016, directing him to pay Rs. 4,000 towards maintenance for his wife.

It was argued on behalf of the applicant that the family court’s order was passed without giving him a proper opportunity, hence, the revision application must be allowed so that the matter can be sent back to the family court and the applicant have an opportunity.

Appearing for the non-applicant wife in the matter, ST Dhurve submitted that in an undertaking dated December 2, 2014, Jayant Wasnik had said he would clear off all interim maintenance amount before closing the evidence from the non-applicant wife’s side.

In spite of the said undertaking given by the present applicant, the amount of arrears was not cleared off.

Applicant’s lawyer SG Karmarkar argued that his client had given the amount of maintenance to his earlier advocate who failed to deposit it.

After hearing all submissions and perusing all the material available on record, Justice Deshpande noted that orders of the family court reflect a different picture as they state that ample opportunities were given to Jayant, but to no avail.

“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,” the court said.

Thus, the revision application was dismissed with a cost of Rs. 25,000.

Read the Judgment Here

Next Story