Jammu and Kashmir High Court slaps ₹1 lakh cost on 81-year-old for harassing judges

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently imposed ₹1 lakh costs on an 81-year-old man, observing that he has virtually become a "cancer for the judicial system" by filing multiple petitions against his daughter-in-law and against judges who hear his petitions..Justice Sanjeev Kumar took strong exception to the language used by the octogenarian in the petition filed by him against the maintenance proceedings initiated by his daughter-in-law."The allegations made in the petition by the petitioner against her daughter-in-law would shock the conscious of any person of ordinary prudence. The allegations made only exhibit depraved mindset the petitioner has for woman, in particular, her daughter-in-law," the Court observed..The Court was dealing with a petition moved by the Srinagar resident under Article 226 for quashing of the maintenance proceedings filed by his daughter-in-law against her husband (son of petitioner). He told the Court that he is contesting the maintenance proceedings pending before a Srinagar Court as his son has executed a power of attorney in his favour..However, the Court noted the present petition was filed by him in his own name and not for or on behalf of his son.In the petition, it also found reckless allegations against the Sessions Judge before whom the proceedings were pending."The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Judge before whom the proceedings are pending is not acting in the manner in which the petitioner desires him to act. He has not placed on record any order passed from the Court below from where reckless allegations made by the petitioner against the Court could be verified," it said..It further reproduced a paragraph from the petition to "emphasize that the petitioner is a person with a depraved mind and probably mentally sick".There are so many other allegations in the petition which are utterly obnoxious and made in extremely bad taste, the Court observed."The petitioner has no sense of decency and is not aware as to how the pleadings in the Court are required to be filed. It also needs to be taken note of that the writ petitioner is habitual litigant and have been filing petition after petition some on behalf of his son to settle score with his daughter-in-law and some raising other disputes with his ex-employer etc," it added..The Court further said that in many of the petitioner's cases which are pending or disposed of by High Court, he has openly shown his lack of trust in almost every judge."The petitioner has virtually become a cancer for the judicial system and by his nuisance is harassing the judges at all levels. Without going much into details of his nefarious activities, the petitioner has been continuously indulging in before the various Courts, suffice it to say, that this petition for challenging the maintenance proceedings under Section 488 Cr. P.C. filed by the petitioner's daughter-in-law against his son are not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner. Even if the petitioner may be attorney holder of his son, he cannot file petition in his own name," it ruled.The language used in the petition is demeaning of a woman and is totally unacceptable in any civilized society, the Court said."I am of the prima facie opinion that the petitioner needs psychiatric help or treatment so that his unchecked indulgence in abusing the process of law is stopped," the single-judge observed..Finding the present petition to be utterly misconceived, without locus and aimed at harassing the Sessions Court Judge, the Court said it deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. However, the Court added that he cannot be left scot-free as that would only encourage him to harass judicial officers. "This petition is, accordingly, dismissed, with an exemplary costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupess One Lakh Only) to be deposited by the petitioner in the Litigants' Welfare Fund within a period of four weeks. In case the petitioner fails to comply with the direction to deposit the costs, the Registrar Judicial of this Court shall, after expiry of four weeks, frame a Robkar and place it before the Court for further orders," it ordered..[Read Order]