The family court on Tuesday dismissed a petition filed by a schoolteacher against her husband, asking for a divorce and a maintenance of Rs 25,000 per month, and instead directed the woman to pay her husband Rs 5,000 for falsely charging her husband with cruelty.
Family court judge Smita P Sawaskar observed that both the couple’s sons deposed against their mother Nasreen (name changed) regarding her alleged extra-marital affair with a 58-year-old lawyer and gave the judgement in favour of the husband Homi (name changed), while also denying Nasreen custody of their younger son.
Homi has now filed a separate criminal complaint through his lawyer Ahemad Khan U Pathan against his wife and her paramour in the court of judicial magistrate (First class) P P Kestikar under section 497 of Indian Penal Code (adultery) and has also decided to approach the Bar Council against the lawyer for professional misconduct.
Nasreen and Homi, residents of Viman Nagar, married in 1986 and have two sons aged 26 and 15 years.As per Homi’s allegations, he had engaged the lawyer as he was fighting two civil suits.
However, the lawyer became a close friend of the family, especially Nasreen. He would take Nasreen out shopping and for movies.
Nasreen even opened bank accounts and had insurance and fixed deposits where she appointed the lawyer as a nominee. He also drafted Homi, Nasreen and Homi’s mother’s wills. Eventually, Homi grew suspicious and dismissed the lawyer.
In 2009, Nasreen filed for divorce on grounds of cruelty as per the dissolution of the Muslim Marriage Act 1939 in the family court and initiated maintenance proceedings through the same lawyer.
Homi’s lawyer Pathan said, “During the trial in the family court, the financial situation of both husband and wife were brought to the judge’s notice. Officials from the bank also gave statements in favour of the husband and it was proved that Nasreen is working in a reputed school and is well able to support herself.”
“We also brought it to the notice of the court that Nasreen is living in adultery with the advocate, who was formerly the advocate in this case. Homi had nine witness, while Nasreen had none,” Pathan added.
Savaskar, after examining and appreciating evidences, dismissed Nasreen’s claim for maintenance, as per sub-section 4 of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The judge in her order stated that ‘a wife is not entitled to maintenance if she is living in adultery.’
The judge also stated that Nasreen failed to prove that Homi had treated her cruelly.
Homi said, “I have now filed a criminal complaint for adultery in the magistrate court. I am also filing a complaint with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa against the professional misconduct of the lawyer.”
