Archive for the ‘Alimony’ Category

Bombay HC : Wife or husband’s attorney cannot appear in family courts u/s 13 of Family Courts Act.

August 29, 2013 Leave a comment

Bombay High Court

Neelam Dadasaheb Shewale vs Dadasaheb Bandu Shewale on 17 February, 2010

Bench: R. S. Dalvi






Neelam Dadasaheb Shewale .. Petitioner Vs.

Dadasaheb Bandu Shewale .. Respondent Mr. Milind N. Jadhav i/b Mr. Sagar G. Talekar for the Petitioner. Mr. R. T. Lalwani for the Respondent.





1. This writ petition challenges three interim orders passed in MJ Petition No.A1633/97 which was for enhancement of maintenance under 25 (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

2. It may be mentioned that an application under that provision can be filed only upon change in the circumstances of either party which would require modification of the order of permanent alimony passed.

3. Two orders are passed upon three applications of the parties.

4. One application was filed by the ex-husband (husband) seeking to restrain his ex-wife (wife) from using his surname (name) since divorce decree has been already passed and has became final. This application came to be filed as an interim application in the fresh petition filed by the wife after divorce.

5. The Advocate on behalf of the wife argued that the separate petition only should have been filed. Both these reliefs, permanent and interim, are between the same parties pursuant to the same marital relationship which has since ceased. Under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act the Family Court has jurisdiction to decide the petition-application as well as a suit or proceeding (permanent or interim), for injunction arising out of the marital relationship. The husband can, therefore, file a separate application/petition for injunction or take out an application in the wife’s application/petition already filed. In fact, the husband can file a counterclaim in any petition with regard to any relief arising out of the marital obligation. An application which may be in the nature of counterclaim, can therefore be allowed an interim application.

6. The substance of the application is required to be considered rather than its form. The substance of the application of the husband is that the wife should not use his name.


7. The Advocate on behalf of the wife fairly concedes that since the marriage has been dissolved by a decree for divorce which has become final, the wife cannot use the name of the husband. That is the only substance to be considered by the Family Court. Under the impugned order dated 23rd September, 2009 the Family Court has considered that aspect as an application arising out of a marital relationship. It is correctly considered. The order needs no interference.

8. In fact, the Advocate on behalf of wife mentioned that the bank account of the wife stands in both her names. That statement itself shows that the wife uses the name of the husband even after their marital relationship has been dissolved by an order of the Court. The description of the bank account is therefore improper. It is, therefore, clarified that the wife cannot use the husband’s name anywhere including in her bank account. The injunction granted by the Family Court in the application of the husband shall be effectuated for all purposes.


9. The writ petition also challenges another order of the same date between the same parties but in two different applications. One was the application filed by the wife for her to be represented by her constituted attorney on the ground that she is ill, does not know English, she has been mentally tortured at the hands of the husband and she would not be able to stand the court proceeding. The other application is filed by her constituted attorney asking for permission to represent the wife as she cannot financially afford a lawyer, lawyers are otherwise not permitted and that she would be entitled to assistance of the person she has faith in.

10.The legal right of a party in Family Court to be represented by her constituted attorney in place of her Advocate who is registered legal practitioner is required to be seen. Under Section 13 of the Family Courts Act no party is entitled as of right to be represented by a legal practitioner. However, the Court may appoint legal expert as amicus curie to assist her/him. A party has full right to appear before the Family Court. None can object to such appearance. The wife does not desire to have an Advocate. She has refused legal aid offered to her. She contends that she has faith only her constituted attorney. The extent of the right of a constituted attorney is laid down in Order III Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code as follows :


1. Appearances, etc., maybe in person, by recognized agent or by pleader. – Any appearance, application or act in or to any Court, required or authorized by law to be made or done by a party in such Court, may, except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, be made or done by the party in person, or by his recognized agent, or by a pleader [appearing, applying or acting, as the case may be,] on his behalf :

Provided that any such appearance shall, if the Court so directs, be made by the party in person.

(emphasis supplied)


11.What is appearance, application or act has been considered by Chief Justice Chagla, as he then was, in the case of Aswin Shambhuprasad Patel and others Vs. National Rayon Corporation Ltd. (AIR 1955 BOMBAY 262). The provision of the aforesaid order was considered taking into account the Bar Councils Act and the Bombay Pleaders Act. It has been held that the aforesaid rule would not apply where a law for the time being in force otherwise expressly provided. It is held that pleading is not included in the expression “appearance, application or act in or to any Court”. This is so because, the right of audience in Court, the right to address the Court, the right to examine and cross-examine the witnesses are dealt with in other parts of the Civil Procedure Code and not under Order 3. It was further held the right of audience in Court is a part of pleading in Court and not “acting” as provided under Order 3. It is further observed that a party in person would have a right of audience in Court and not his recognized agent who would be “appearing, applying or acting” on his behalf. 7


12.Further the right of pleaders to plead in a Court of law under authority of the client and to have a right of audience in Court as a member of Bar is not dealt with under Order 3. The members of the Bar have a right in clause 10 of the Letters Patent as they are qualified to plead in Court as required by specific legislation and rules. Under that clause no person except Advocates, Vakils or Attorneys would be allowed to act or plead for and on behalf of any suitor except the suitor himself. Considering Section 8 of the Bar Councils Act under which no person was entitled to practice as an Advocate unless his name was entered in the roll of Advocates, it was observed that the expression “practice” is wider than the expression “plead”. Similarly Section 9 of the Bombay Pleaders Act, which was similar to the above section, was considered. The proviso to that section allowed a party to appear, plead or act on his own behalf but a recognized agent of the party was allowed to only appear or act (and not plead). It was therefore observed that proviso made a distinction between appearing, pleading or acting and appearing or acting. Whereas the party could do all three of the above her/his constituted attorney 8

could do only the above two. Consequently it was held that in the District Courts a recognized agent had no right to plead by relying on provision 9 of the Bombay Pleaders Act. It was observed that the right of audience is a natural and necessary concomitant of the right to plead and as the recognized agent had no right to plead, it follows that he has no right of audience in Court.


13.The law that is laid down in the aforesaid judgment holds true and good till now and even within Section 13 of the Family Courts Act. The object of Section 13 of the Family Courts Act is to allow a party to represent her/his case and consequently right of the lawyer to plead, appear and have audience in Court is limited but the right given to the party to appear is not extended to that parties’ constituted attorney. Hence, the general law of procedure under Order 3 Rule 1 as also the special laws contained in the Bar Councils Act and the Bombay Pleaders Act would apply even in a Family Court. The object of that provision is that only qualified persons are entitled to appear in Courts and represent the case of their parties. The qualification is of the knowledge of the law and 9

the enrollment under the Act. If constituted attorneys of all the parties are allowed to appear, the Court would be overrun by any number of unqualified, unenrolled persons. Since Civil Procedure Code would generally apply to a Family Court under Section 10 of the Act, the restraint upon appearance under Order 3 of the Code must hold good.


14.In the case of Pavithra Vs. Rahul Raj (AIR 2003 MADRAS 138 it has been held that the recognized agent of the party in a Family Court proceedings cannot be allowed to prosecute it. Considering the various provisions of the Family Courts Act which follow the procedure different from the Civil Courts, it is observed that the parties themselves can be heard. Some times legal assistance can be provided. However, personal appearance of the parties is inevitable to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Family Courts Act. Though the authorized agent, who is not a legal practitioner can file a petition, he can only prosecute or defend it or represent the party only until the Family Court passes an order directing the party to appear in person depending upon the facts and stage of the case. In that case the constituted attorney sought 10

permission to defend the case on the ground that she was not able to come to India to contest the case. Such a permission, it was held, could not be granted.


15.In the case of Sudha Kaushik Vs. Umesh prasad Kaushik (AIR 2005 GUJARAT 244) upon considering the law under normal circumstances as aforesaid it was held since that case the petitioner’s life was in danger his father was allowed to represent his son in the interest of justice though it was held that in normal circumstances any citizen or party is not allowed to be represented by his power of attorney unless he is an Advocate of the Court.


16.Consequently both the orders of the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai dated 23.09.2009 are correct and cannot be interfered with. Writ petition is dismissed.

(R. S. DALVI, J.)


Delhi HC-Permanent alimony granted during Divorce? No further maintenance in CrPC 125

February 4, 2012 Leave a comment

Delhi High Court

Anita vs Rati Ram Chauhan on 4 November, 2011
Author: Mukta Gupta


+ Crl. Rev. P. 726/2010 & Crl. M.A. 17479/2011 %

Reserved on: 8th August, 2011

Decided on: 4th November, 2011

ANITA ….. Petitioner Through: Mr. Ratnesh Bansal, Advocate


RATI RAM CHAUHAN ….. Respondents Through: Mr. Shailender Dahiya, Advocate with Respondent in person.



1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may Not Necessary be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in the Digest?


1. By this petition the Petitioner seeks quashing of the Judgment dated 10th September, 2010 passed in case number 95/2010 by the learned Additional Principal Judge dismissing the application of the Petitioner seeking maintenance from the Respondent under Section 125 Cr. P. C.

2. Briefly the facts are that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 23rd February, 1996. The Petitioner claims that the Respondent and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry articles presented at the time of marriage. They started ill treating her and raised a demand of Rs. 1 Lac and a car. On 17th April, 1996 the Respondent, his father and sister pushed her down from the roof of the matrimonial home resulting in serious injuries to the Complainant. She was then removed by the neighbors to Gupta Nursing Home. The nursing home however did not admit her and referred her instead to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital. On 27th April, 1996 the Petitioner was discharged from Mata Chanan Devi Hospital and since then she has been staying in her parental home. After about 17-20 months, the Petitioner lodged a complaint with the police for the said incident and a case FIR No. 34/98 was registered under Section 498A/307/406/34 IPC. In the said trial the Respondent and his family members were acquitted by the learned Additional Session Judge. The Respondent in May, 1998 filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and the marriage was dissolved by learned District Session Judge vide Judgment and decree dated 26th May, 2007. Vide this Judgment, the Petitioner was granted Rs. 3,000/- per month as alimony. There is however an appeal pending in this court filed by the Petitioner vide Mat. App. 46/2007. The Petitioner  claims that after her injury, she is unable to move and the Respondent has not made any provision for her medical treatment or maintenance and is refusing to maintain her without any sufficient cause. Hence the present petition.

3. The learned Counsel for Petitioner contends that the learned Additional Principal Judge in the impugned Judgment has placed great reliance on the fact that the Respondent and his family members have been acquitted by the learned Additional Session Judge. According to him this acquittal was not binding on the family court and therefore the maintenance application should have been decided on its own merits de- hors the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the criminal trial.

4. It is stated that as per Section 125 Cr. P. C if a person with sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife then he is liable to pay her maintenance. Learned Counsel states that the learned Additional Principal Judge failed to appreciate the fact that during trial the Respondent admitted his liability to maintain the Petitioner but had not shown any intention to take the Petitioner back to the matrimonial home.

5. Learned Counsel for Petitioner further states that the Petitioner has appealed against the Judgment dated 26th May, 2007 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge dissolving her marriage which is still pending in this Court. Under these circumstances the alimony of Rs. 3,000/- per month granted to the Petitioner in the divorce proceedings should have been disregarded by the learned Additional Principal Judge while deciding the petition for maintenance.

6. Learned Counsel for Respondent on the other hand contends that the Respondent had never neglected to maintain the Petitioner. On the 17th April 1996, the Petitioner slipped from the stairs when the Petitioner and his father were not at home. The entire medical expenses were borne by the Respondent. The Respondent being a Government employee is entitled to all the facilities of medical treatment under CGHS and had repeatedly asked the Petitioner to get treated at any CGHS hospital. But all she did was demand money in lieu of medical expenses, trying to cause the Respondent wrongful loss. The Petitioner was never meted with cruelty. It is the Petitioner who has deserted the Respondent as she was not interested in maintaining the relations.

7. I have heard learned Counsels for the parties. While adjudicating any issue it is the responsibility of the Judge to consider all the facts and circumstances. Proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are summons trial proceedings. The Court is justified on relying upon the findings of the competent Court in a criminal trial for the offences alleged and regarding cruelty by the matrimonial Court. In Inderjit Kaur vs. Union of India (1990) 1 SCC 344 it was held that, that Section 125 CrPC provides a speedy remedy against starvation of the civil liabilities of the parties, the order made thereunder is tentative and is subject to final determination of the rights in civil court. Further in Teja Singh vs. Chhoto 1981Crl. L.J. 1467 (Punjab & Haryana) while dealing with a similar issue it was held that even if an order granting maintenance had been passed in favour of the wife and if thereafter a decision between the parties is rendered by the civil court which has a bearing on the question which came up for consideration earlier before the Court dealing with the petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it has to give effect to the civil court order by cancelling the order granting maintenance if such is the import of the judgment of the civil court. In case of Sri Jasholal Agrawala @ Jain vs. Smt. Puspabati Agrawala, 1994 Crl.LJ 185 the High Court of Orissa it was held that it has to be taken as an accepted principle that the finding of the civil court in a matrimonial proceeding is binding on the criminal court and the criminal court is not entitled to question the correctness or validity of the civil court decision. 

8. The learned Additional Principal Judge was therefore justified in relying on the fact that the learned Additional District Judge by Judgment dated 26th May, 2007 had dissolved the marriage of the parties on the ground of cruelty by the Petitioner and had the Respondent actually been harassing or neglecting the Petitioner then he would have never succeeded in the divorce petition. The fact that the Respondent allowed bed ridden Petitioner to go to her parental home so that she could be looked after by her mother was also found to be convincing since the Respondent had no female member in his family.

9. It is relevant to note that the Petitioner in her statement has admitted before doctor in the Hospital that she had slipped from the stairs on the day of incident. The Petitioner has not placed anything on record to show that there was any pressure from the side of Respondent on her to give that statement. Further, the father of the Petitioner in his statement before Court admitted that when he visited his daughter in the Hospital she did not tell him anything. From a perusal of the statements of witnesses, it is clear that the claim of the Petitioner that Respondents failed to maintain her and willfully neglected her is not substantiated.

10. As per the record the Respondent had filed the medical bills of Mata Chanan Devi Hospital as evidence of making payment of the same. The father of the Petitioner in his explanation for the bills being in possession of the Respondent had stated that the respondent had stolen the bills from him. But this story is completely contradictory to his other statement wherein he had said that the Respondent never visited the Petitioner in the hospital or thereafter. Thus the Respondent had no occasion to commit the theft of the bills from the Petitioner or her father. Therefore it can be safely held that the Respondent bore the expenses of the Petitioner’s treatment in the hospital and he was not negligent in his responsibilities towards the Petitioner.

11. The Petitioner has not been able to adduce any evidence to support her contention of being neglected by the Respondent. Moreover there is no explanation rendered by the Petitioner as to why she did not inform her neighbour or any other person who allegedly removed her to the nursing home that she was thrown by the Respondent or his father. Further the fact that the Complaint under Sections 498A, 406, 307 & 34 IPC was filed by the Petitioner after about 17-20 months of the incident shows that the same was an after thought. The Respondent on the other hand has adduced evidence to show that he had not neglected to maintain the Petitioner and is even paying Rs. 3,000/- per month regularly as directed by the learned Additional District Judge vide the Judgment dated 26th May, 2007.

12. Learned Additional Principal Judge has considered all the relevant issues and scrutinize the matter. I do not find any infirmity in the Judgment dated 10th September, 2010.

The revision petition and the application are accordingly dismissed. (MUKTA GUPTA)


NOVEMBER 04, 2011


Categories: Alimony, CrPC 125 Tags: ,

No alimony to Women who desert her husband-PUNJAB AND HARYANA HC

December 6, 2011 1 comment


Criminal Misc. No.M-24684 of 2008 (O&M)




Criminal Misc. No.M-24684 of 2008 (O&M)

Present: Mr.P.L. Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. S.D. Bansal, Advocate, for the respondent.

Marriage of Poonam (petitioner) with Mohinder Kumar (respondent) took place on 23.1.1998. Two sons were born out of the wedlock, who are residing with the respondent. The petitioner is residing with her parents. A case under Sections 406/ 498-A/ 149/ 506 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at the instance of the petitioner against the respondent and others vide F.I.R. No.52 dated 17.2.2000 at Police Station City, Jind. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as vthe Code’) claiming maintenance from the respondent alleging that he was running wholesale business of sale and purchase of utensils in the name and style of M/s. Laxmi Metal Store and was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. This petition was contested by the respondent on the ground that the petitioner left her matrimonial house on her own accord and that she was earning about Rs.10,000/- per month as she was M.A.B.Ed. The Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jind, vide order dated 9.6.2007 dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 125 of the Code. The petitioner went in revision against the order passed by the trial Magistrate. The same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 5.8.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jind, although holding that the husband has not been able to prove that the wife has sufficient means to maintain herself and, at the same time, affirming the finding recorded by the trial Magistrate that the petitioner-wife left the company of the respondent on her own accord. Hence this petition under Section 482 of the Code by the petitioner seeking reversal of the orders passed by both the Courts below.

I have heard Mr.P.L. Goyal, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.D. Bansal, Advocate, appearing for the respondent and have gone through the records of the case.

The trial Magistrate, after framing issues, recording evidence, both oral and documentary, and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not been able to prove on record that she was ill-treated by the respondent or he was cruel towards her in any manner. Except her statement, the petitioner failed to examine any other witness in support of her case to prove ill-treatment, dowry demand and other allegations made in the petition. Even the parents of the petitioner did not come forward to support her case. The petitioner failed to join her husband even after the petition filed by him for restitution of conjugal rights was accepted by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was filed by the petitioner, was declined by the Court by holding that there was no desertion on the part of the respondent, rather the petitioner deserted her husband due to her own personal reasons. The petitioner did not take care of her sons, who are residing with the respondent. There is no allegation in the petition that she had ever asked the respondent for giving her the custody of the sons. The petitioner appears to be interested only in getting maintenance allowance and taking divorce from the respondent. The respondent is solely taking care of the children. To bring up two children single handedly is an onerous duty, which the respondent is performing and the petitioner is shirking. The petitioner, in her cross-examination, stated that after she left her matrimonial house, she never tried to contact the respondent or her kids. In the case of Smt.Rohtash Singh v. Ramendri (Smt.), 2000 (2) R.C.R (Criminal) 286, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a wife is not entitled to maintenance who has deserted her husband, but a wife who has divorced on account of her desertion is entitled to maintenance from decree of divorce. Failure of the petitioner-wife to prove sufficient grounds justifying her staying away from the respondent-husband and two kids shows that she had left the society of the respondent on her own accord. In these circumstances, both the Courts below were justified in declining the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 125 of the Code.

In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed being without any merit.

March 19 , 2009.


Fight for Justice

A crusaders blog for inspiring thought.

Stand up for your rights

Gender biased laws

MyNation Foundation - News

News Articles from MyNation, india - News you can use

498afighthard's Blog

Raising Awareness About Gender Biased Laws and its misuse In India

The Blog

The latest news on and the WordPress community.