Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5.8 In the divorce petition, on 20.5.2025, the petitioner filed an application under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking maintenance based on concocted and false averments. The learned Family Court vide order dated 15.9.2025 allowed the application under section 24 of the HMA with the direction to the respondent-wife to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as an interim maintenance and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. Against the order dated 15.9.2025, the respondent-wife filed a review application which is pending for adjudication before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Prayagraj.

7. On 17.12.2025, Ms. Amrita Rai Mishra, learned Amicus-Curiae filed written submission, and the same has been taken on record. She contended that the petitioner is already getting maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month and also received one time amount of Rs.10,000/- for litigation expenses. The maintenance was awarded pursuant to an application dated 20.05.2025 filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the divorce proceedings initiated by the respondent-wife, pending trial before the learned Family Court, Prayagraj. The petitioner has not disclosed the details of the application dated 20.05.2025, filed under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and an order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the learned Family Judge, Prayagraj directing the respondent-wife to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner and Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses, in an application filed under Section 144 BNSS, 2023 before learned Family Judge at Etawah. Learned Amicus-Curiae has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph no.16 of the Maintenance Application No.523 of 2025, filed under 144 BNSS, 2023 wherein the petitioner has stated that no case with regard to maintenance is pending in any Court and sworn affidavit to this effect.

7.2 Learned Amicus-Curiae further stated that petitioner is in habit of misleading Courts by placing incorrect facts and swearing false affidavits. This become grave when the petitioner himself claims to be a practicing Advocate and has been appearing in this Court regularly under the guidance of Shri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel. Contesting matrimonial litigation is one thing, and filing false and frivolous petitions along with false affidavits is another matter of grave concern. The conduct of the petitioner shall be taken seriously. On one hand, the respondent-wife is paying monthly installment of Rs.26,020/- against the loan spent by the petitioner-husband for consuming alcohol and leading luxurious life. On the other hand, the petitioner has moved two separate maintenance applications; (i) under section 144 of BNSS, 2023 and (ii) section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 accompanied with false affidavits. Further, the petitioner is getting a maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month by misleading the learned Family Court and received one time amount of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

18. So far as the issue of compensatory cost is concerned, and the judgments placed reliance by Ms. Vijeta Singh, the common thread running through all the judgments is the reiteration of three salutary principles; (i) cost should ordinarily follow the event, (ii) realistic cost should be awarded keeping in view the ever increasing litigation expenses, and (iii) the cost should serve the purpose for curbing frivolous and vexatious litigation. The words of Justice Browen in Cropper v. Smith (1884)11 aptly resonates strongly with an issue for determination of the compensatory cost-I found in my experience that there is one panacea which heals every sore in litigation and that is costs.