LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

TR NIMADE (AM)     11 April 2016

Maintenance of wife dismissed with costs

Dear SIR,                                                                                                                      11/04/2016

This is a case of maintenance in respect of CRPC 125 and interim maintenance. Though petitioner father is a senior most advocate who is pleading the case of her daughter but he completely exposed before the court and therefore when court come across that petitioner and her father has suppressed the material facts of working of petitioner before the court for taking the undue advantage in their favour, Ld court has reacted very much as below and thereafter not only dismissed the case but also imposed a penalty of Rs.25000/- upon the petitioner.

 "Not being the father of the petitioner but being a Senior Advocate it was his duty to restrain the petitioner from 'hide and seek' policy. I sustained pain injury on my six sense when I was writing this paragraph."

Further this is a case purely based on suppression of material facts by the petitioner before the court and the ld judge has elucidatory referred  the various judgments of APPEX court for arriving his decision and conclusion and some of them are reported as under:-


“As a general rule, suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the Courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. But the suppressed fact must be a material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed it would have had an effect on the merit of the case.”


 "A person whose case is based on falsehood can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. We have no hesitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court and he can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.”


"Court have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the Court's, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts and came to

the courts with 'unclean hands'. Court have held that such litigants are neither entitled to be heard on the merits of the case nor entitled to any relief”.

The Parties must state forthwith sufficient factual details to the extent that it reduces the ability to put forward false and exaggerated claims and a litigant must approach the Court with clean hands. It is the bounden duty of the Court to ensure that dishonesty and any attempt to surpass the legal process must be effectively curbed and the Court must ensure that there is no wrongful, unauthorized or unjust gain to anyone as a result of abuse of the process of the Court. The person seeking equity must do equity. It is not just the clean hands, but also clean mind, clean heart and clean objective that are the equi-fundamentals of judicious litigation. No litigant can play 'hide and seek' with the Courts or adopt 'pick and choose'. True facts ought to be disclosed as the Court knows law, but not facts.



"Suppression or concealment of material facts is impermissible to a litigant or even as a technique of advocacy. In such cases, the Court is duty bound to discharge rule nisi and such applicant is required to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court."

“Another settled canon of administration of justice is that no litigant should be permitted to misuse the judicial process by filing frivolous petitions. No litigant has a right to unlimited drought upon the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be used as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions."






Further it is held by the judge in the instant case that;-


 she has neither informed this Court nor the Superior Court about her employment and by suppressing this material fact she misled the Court and obtained the order in her favour by proving that she is unemployed having no source of personal income. Such non-disclosure amounts to suppression of material facts, inasmuch as, had it not been suppressed, it would have an effect on the merits of the present case.

In light of these settled principles, if I examine the facts of the present case, the  petitioner is guilty of suppressing materials facts, approaching the court with unclean hands, filing petition for ad interim monetary relief, obtaining a favourable order with ulterior motive and finally for abusing the process of the court. In the grab of doctrines like the Right to Liberty and access to justice, the petitioner not only intended but actually filed improper and untenable petition, primarily with the object of extorting money and causing financial injury to the other party.


The petitioner is neither entitled to be heard on the merits of the case nor entitled to any relief. So, the present case is hereby dismissed with a cost in the form of compensation of Rs 25,000/-(Twenty five thousands) payable by the petitioner within one month with the Judicial Cashier of this courts.


Please find the judgment attached


Thanking you,
With kind regards


 2 Replies

Born Fighter (xxx)     11 April 2016

Congrats Mr Nimade, Good Job done !

Now ur wife will have no standing in the court. U should advise ur wife to join some nautanki group, she will definately earn more than Rs 29,276/-

Are you filing Perjury on ur wife ? what about ur father in law...how will he face the Bar council, its a terrible loss of face . Did u make any payments on account of IM, if yes then claim it back.

Loha garam hai....marr do hathoda..........wind up the matter to ur advantage and move on!

Nothing more is left to be proved !

Punit   27 August 2019

Hi could you please share this judgement asap. I am not able to download this judgement from the link provided by you 

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register