“Litigant's Duty To Be Vigilant”: Delhi HC Rejects Man's Plea Challenging Maintenance Order Claiming Misguidance By Counsel
|The Delhi High Court dismissed a husband’s challenge against maintenance awarded by a family court on the contention that he was misguided by his then counsel.
The Bench noted the husband's contention which caused him to miss the proceedings and remain "in the dark about the ongoing proceedings against him." Although the husband did not deny that he was duly served with the notice issued by the Family Court, he chose to blame his former counsel for his non-attendance.
A Single Bench of Justice Navin Chawla observed, “To a pointed query of this Court as to whether the petitioner has taken any action against the earlier counsel, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admits that no complaint has been filed against the earlier counsel. Even otherwise, the blame for the non-appearance of the petitioner cannot be fully placed only on the shoulder of the counsel. It is a well settled principle of law that a litigant owes a duty to be vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending against it in the court of law.”
Advocate Pawan Reley represented the petitioners, while CGSC Monika Arora appeared for the respondents.
The Husband had challenged the decision of the family court whereby he was directed to pay maintenance to his wife and child under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. The said order has been passed after the petitioner was proceeded ex-parte.
The husband contended that he was misled by his then-counsel and misinformed by his wife, resulting in his non-appearance at the hearings. He also accused his wife of forging documents to secure the maintenance order. He later filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking to set aside the order, which was also dismissed by the family court.
“Meanwhile, another petition was filed by the petitioner herein under Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenging the order dated 30.06.2022, which was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh. At the outset, it is noticed and mentioned that the copy of the said petition that was filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner herein or the order passed in the said petition, have not been placed before this court in the present petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is due to inadvertence,” the Court remarked.
The Bench relied on the Delhi High Court’s decision in Delhi Waqf Board v. Mohd Bi. 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7178 which reiterated the settled principle of law that a litigant owes a duty to be vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending against it in the court of law.
“As far as the plea of the petitioner that the respondents have forged documents or have misguided the learned Family Court, this plea cannot be taken by the petitioner in the present proceedings, especially after choosing not to defend the complaint before the learned Family Court,” the Court held.
The Court stated that the husband should have been vigilant especially “as it was filed against him for seeking maintenance by the respondents and was in the form of a criminal proceeding.”
Consequently, the Court found the explanation given by the husband as “completely frivolous and not worth accepting.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Mohd. Shueb v. Fayza Nisar & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:4040)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Abhishek Jain, Neelima Kant, Rampratap Kaushal and Aalim