Maintenance for the children

@ Author of the thread post,

1.    Ask her to speak to her Advocate to file representation before State’s HC seeking remedy under S. 21-B HMA for speedy trial OR disposal of interim maintenance in time bound frame showing delay tactics from material records of the case file and the two minors immediate maintenance needs.

2.    Normally it is seen that within few dates after admission of her representation Hon’ble HC directs trial Court to dispose interim maintenance application in shortest possible time or may also give direction to dispose interim maintenance in 2 or 3 months time frame.

3.    Ask her to avail of such available remedies at State’s HC at the earliest. Also note Law says so far as possible interim maintenance needs to be disposed of in 60 days.

Under which act has she claimed for maintanence would have to be clarified . Since if it under the DV act than the act it self states that reliefs have to be provided within 60 days of the first hearing .Although law states but you would notice that law does not function in this practical way .Indian courts are subject to inordinate delays . Both party advocates on purpose delay the proceedings of the court by calling for documents or summoning of witness and recalling them again .Since when the duration of the case runs longer they abstract more in terms of their fees which is the source of their revenue .Your advocate has to file an application stating the facts for in-ordinate delays show casing the  tactics by the opposite party mentioning the material that forms material records of the court . Dont worry as and when the order is passed you advocate can claim interest on the maintenance order that is passed from the day of application.

My DV case is going on, relief asked is for interim maintanence and i am the respondent  . My salary slip was submitted where i worked in india but applicants counsel wanted me to submit my salary slip of a particular month where i worked abroad . Applicant called my indian employer as witness. Purshis filed by me stating name of the employer as well as the shop act of the employer  submitted  . Witness turned up but forgot her identity card hence one date gone  .Hence was called on the next date . Witness appeared but applicants counsel stated witness not called for and hence not prepared for cross.Meanwhile voluntary maintenance being deposited in court without fail each and every month .I Changed employment in india once again hence submitted new employment letter in court .  Now again for past several dates applicants counsel calling for witness summons of old employer  where in i have already left the job , applicant counsel is not bothered about collecting the summons or maybe clerk is taking is own sweet time  . On one date applicant counsel states summons to be served by police on another date through another court and on another date by RPAD but all these are oral submissions etc etc except for the first written submission . Argument took place on the same i ask if summons are served than where is the report of the same for which no answer is there by the applicants counsel .Like a dumb statue he stands .

Application for inordinate delay submitted by the respondent stating delaying tactics of the applicant who has applied for interim maintenance. Conveyed to the judge that old employer appeared twice and also that  interim maintenance is not based on past employment but on present employment which is a thumb rule .On next date applicants counsel once again opens his mouth summons with half voice that he wants the summons to be served by RPAD  . Judge ask where is the application for summons .Meanwhile i interrput stating that for past one year case is stagnant and past one he is only doing summons .  No application filed by applicants counsel once again judge in frustation fumes  at applicats counsel  but still than states to issue the summons .but no idea for whom wether for past employer or present employer. 

In full volume inside the court premises i shout on top of my voice stating that i dont know from which law school the applicants counsel has passed or the name of the law school which has taught him that law states that interim maintenance is based on past employment since he is calling witness summons of my past employer as though interim maintenance is going to be passed on past employment . . The entire advocates seated laugh at him . But yet in shameless manner opens his mouth and states Sir summons has to be served . 

 Even though Tajobsindia has stated 60 days and even i too have acknowledged the same, but this is the way our courts functions .

1.    He has gone to a Law school which states ;records originates from the date said to be Complainant got married to main respondent till date a DV Complaint is filed. If on the date when she filed Complaint you were working in THAT old company then that record is also a must and not your vexatious THUMB RULE antics in Court.

@ Tajobs 

If record originates from the date DV complaint filed than that record submitted as per status of indian employment during that period  in india.

Had he gone to law school he would not have called for payslip of employment abroad since at that time DV wasnt filed while i was abroad ,but only after joining  employment in india DV was filed .  Judge too stated that he is no longer abroad and hence interim maintanence cannot be passed based on employment abroad but based on present employment in india.

Her side is (fishing) show somehow on records ‘income’ pattern of a respondent husband to draw inference on his earning ‘capacity’ while she was not availing complaint relief akin to ‘status she was used to – or status she should equate (whichever fits as just argument to meet end to justice as she believes is rightfully hers)’ which are all part and parcel of adversial moot court proceedings taught as rational logics in law schools preceding complaint filing date for a reason she was living in a subsisting marriage to apply in real court proceedings .
Just a saying from said to be an institution;
"Clever guys settle cases fast and fools take years for the same."
Take: How clever one is to justify the same by paying money as cleaver?
[cond/-]

 

I like the way your lines hit the target  and the manner in which you have gauged and this is a result of  your profession.

True inference was drawn by applicants council to the judge stating difference in salary in India and abroad . For which i stated to the judge the difference in the cost of living in india and abroad and if applicants council has  started a recruitment agency  recruiting people abroad than he is most welcome to recruit me for which he smiled and applicants counsel began staring at me. Than i vomited all the possible causes for low salary in india recession, age factor,diabities,blood pressure,Psorasis   etc  for which no reputed indian company can i pass their medical fitness test . 

He he you may always overhear laughs from members of the bar sitting at front row on your ‘passionate’ non-legal arguments or rather vehement bald rebuttals which ld. Judges allows in their Courts when they face party-in-person litigant(s) but THAT laugh is actually of rational logics which ld. brothers commonly share silently as how to keep drawing inference, and now look behold, you are now speaking ‘justifying’ those very ‘inference’ in your last reply which a smart (oops for you he may be the only idiot alive in this world) Lawyer draws across home. Hence lawyer for you may be idiot as you very often speak of our profession in demean ways here in LCI but that very Lawyer has something learnt from law schools which common litigants have no clue of and thus common litigants suffer such delay and latches.
Observation:
Always respect your enemy howsoever ideot s/he may sound.
[Final last reply]

he  he  the  stage of transition has already passed from abroad to india and the abroad factor no longer exists in as of date of my court proceedings . Now the transition stage going on  is change of jobs in india itself .  Reliefs are being sought by the applicant and not me hence who is bothered about when they are going to be passed  . Fighting as party in person helps in a no of ways.

1. Since a person knows his case very well.

2. A lawyer in order to fight a litigants case has to get the input from the litigant without which he cant function . 

Money is not spent in terms of lawyers fees no matter how long the case runs does not matter to me as voluntary  maintenance is being deposited in the court . Hence a crooked lawyer cant ask for interest on any  maintanence being passed.

A lawyer potrays when a person fights party in person " bald arguments ".........." non Legal arguments "  . The reason being a case has to be understood rather than  trying to justify points  .............he ...he ...interim maintenance filed is for child and not for the applicant .When both parents are working child maintenance is co-extensive  .Isnt it ??  

Potraying Lawyers as gods is unethical and drawing inference of a past state of a person where so ever he resides is utter Nonsense as though the court can state or order a person to go back abroad and work .Just stating that a lawyer has learnt something from law schools does not make sense as though common litigants are illiterate of the law .

Majority of the litigants suffer delay’s the cause and the reason being courts are over flooded with false cases and no lawyer can give a time bound closure that the case would come to a judgement on so and so date  .Can he ?

My personal experience is i have seen lawyers agitating on several dates stating delays by opposite counsel .On some date this counsel is absent and on another date the other  counsel is absent and finally it so happens that the judge itself is on leave and than on another date a application is filed than adjournment is taken to file the say on the next date of hearing ,summons be sent for witness reissue of summons cross examination of witness so and so forth and than argument would take place hence all these are part and parcel of proceedings 

My ethics 

Take respect give respect but not for a person who files false cases.