Taking liberty with court process has consequences: Delhi Court orders man to pay ₹50k costs in matrimonial case

While dealing with a matrimonial dispute, a Delhi Court recently highlighted that liberal access to justice should not be construed by anyone as a means to lead chaos and indiscipline. .Additional Sessions Judge Anuj Agrawal saddled a husband with ₹50,000 costs for filing a “frivolous” plea in a matrimonial dispute with his estranged wife.“In my view, liberal access to justice should not be construed by anyone as a means to lead chaos and indiscipline and frivolous petitions should be penalised with heavy cost. The sanctity of the judicial process will be seriously eroded if such attempts are not dealt with firmly. A litigant who takes liberty with court procedure should anticipate the necessary consequences,” the judgment stated..The man had moved an appeal against the order of a trial court which had directed attachment of his properties to recover monthly maintenance arrears that were due to the estranged wife..To the husband’s woes, the judge termed him a “classic example of an unscrupulous litigant”, who on the one hand sought the Court’s assistance to vindicate his rights, and on the other, had “complete disregard” of its directions, flouting them with impunity. The judge thus underscored that such petitions must be heavily penalised after expressing anguish and being “appalled” at the “insidious and cavalier” approach of the man. .A litigant who takes liberty with court procedure should anticipate the necessary consequencesAdditional Sessions Judge Anuj Agrawal.The husband was directed to pay ₹1.25 lakh monthly maintenance towards his estranged wife and a minor daughter. His plea against the maintenance order was earlier rejected by the Delhi High Court. Another plea of the wife, seeking a revision of the maintenance, was also dismissed by the High Court. It came on record that the wife had filed a contempt petition in the High Court alleging that she was not being paid the monthly maintenance as directed. She claimed outstanding arrears of ₹50 lakh, while the husband said it was around ₹40 lakh.For the execution of payment of maintenance, the trial court on July 16, 2021, refused to entertain his application seeking recall of its direction for issuance of warrants for attachment of his properties..Before Judge Agrawal, the husband’s counsel argued that the order was against the principles of natural justice and was passed in “haste”..However, the Sessions Court noticed that the the trial court had adopted a correct approach when it directed for warrants of attachment against the movable properties of the husband. He has failed to clear the arrears of maintenance and further payments despite the orders by three fora, including the Delhi High Court, the judge noted. “It is also evident that the appellant herein has left no stone unturned to exploit the procedural wrangles so as to defeat the lawful directions of various courts passed against him in pending litigations and all this legal marsh, the very purpose of award of interim maintenance in favour of respondent/wife and the minor child is being defeated,” the judgment stated..The wife, in the Court's opinion, could not be deprived of her legitimate right to maintenance - endorsed by judicial orders of not only by this court but even the High Court - owing to one frivolous application after another. “It appears that appellant/husband is harbouring an impression that he can wriggle out from his liability to pay maintenance by filing one frivolous petition or other,” Judge Agrawal underscored.A "stern message" was, therefore, thought to be the right way of dealing against those resorting to frivolous litigation as it not only "clogged arteries of justice delivery system but also deprived genuine litigants of fundamental rights of speedy trial"..The Court thus said that the instant plea ought to be dismissed and imposed ₹50,000 costs on the man for a “mischievous approach”.The money was ordered to be deposited with the Lawyers Welfare Fund, Saket Bar Association, within seven days from the date of the instant order, failing which appropriate recovery proceedings would be initiated..[Read Judgment]