Case at a Glance
In a long-running maintenance dispute, the Bombay High Court on 28 April 2025 dismissed a husband’s writ petition and ordered him to pay ₹50,000 as costs to his wife within four weeks. He did not pay. Only after the Court directed him to appear in person did he apply, about 17 months later, to have the costs waived, saying he had no income and his bank account was frozen. Noting that the trial court had recorded his salary at about ₹7 lakh a month, the Court found the non-payment and delay “surprising and shocking,” treated the application as an attempt to mislead it, and dismissed it with a further ₹1,00,000 in costs payable to the High Court Legal Services Committee.
The wife, an assistant teacher, had obtained interim maintenance of ₹50,000 a month in a maintenance petition in December 2019, and separate interim maintenance for herself and the couple’s two sons in proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. As recited by the High Court, the trial court found that the husband, a senior manager, drew a salary of about ₹7 lakh a month and held a fixed deposit of about ₹1.70 crore, with total income for 2022–23 reported at about ₹2.09 crore. He did not pay maintenance; a distress warrant and proclamation were issued, his defence was struck off, and the trial court passed a “no cross” order against him.
His writ petition challenging that order was dismissed on 28 April 2025. The Court accepted that a defendant whose defence is struck off may still cross-examine witnesses, as held in Modula India v. Kamakshya Singh Deo, but refused relief under Article 227 because of his conduct, and ordered ₹50,000 costs payable to the wife within four weeks. The costs were never deposited and the order was not challenged. The wife applied to enforce the costs with interest, and on 23 October 2026 the Court directed the husband to appear in person. On 24 October 2026 he filed an application seeking waiver of the costs, citing a bank account frozen since 1 October 2024.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a litigant who ignored a costs order for about 17 months, without challenging it, obtain a waiver by pleading lack of income and a frozen bank account?
Courts Are Not a Laboratory
The Court described the non-payment of costs and the delay as “surprising and shocking.” The four-week period had expired around 26 May 2025; office notes of June 2025 recorded non-deposit; and the husband’s counsel conceded that the order had never been challenged. The waiver application came only after the Court directed his personal appearance. Against the trial court’s findings on his salary, deposits and income, the Court treated the plea of having no income as an attempt to mislead it.
Relying on Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha, (2024) 01 SC CK 0040, which collects earlier rulings including Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Moti Lal Songara v. Prem Prakash, the Court applied the principle that a litigant who approaches it with tainted hands is not entitled to relief, quoting the Supreme Court’s reminder that a “court is not a laboratory where children come to play.” The husband’s counsel pointed to a deposit of about ₹1.29 crore made in the trial court from his niece’s account, but the Court nonetheless refused relief. The waiver application was dismissed with costs of ₹1,00,000, and the matter was listed on 4 December 2026.
What the Court Actually Held
- A costs order that was never challenged must be complied with; an unexplained 17-month default disentitles the party to a waiver.
- The plea of no income was contrary to the trial court’s recorded findings and was treated as an attempt to mislead the Court.
- A litigant with tainted hands is not entitled to discretionary relief, following Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha.
- The husband’s application was dismissed with costs of ₹1,00,000 payable to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Mumbai, within four weeks; the matter stands over to 4 December 2026.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It sends a clear signal that costs orders in matrimonial litigation are not optional.
- It shows that courts will test a plea of poverty against income findings already on record.
- Wives facing long maintenance defaults can seek enforcement of costs and personal appearance of the defaulting spouse.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Wives Seeking Maintenance
- Keep the trial court’s income findings and payment records ready; they can defeat later pleas of poverty.
- Move promptly to enforce costs and maintenance orders, including seeking the defaulter’s personal appearance.
- Non-payment can lead to striking off of defence and adverse orders in the main case.
For Counsel
- Advise clients to comply with or challenge a costs order in time; seeking waiver after default invites more costs.
- Pleas based on frozen accounts must be backed by full and candid disclosure of all assets.
- Cite Modula India v. Kamakshya Singh Deo carefully: the right to cross-examine survives a struck-off defence, but Article 227 relief remains discretionary.
Key Takeaways
- The ₹50,000 costs of April 2025 remained unpaid for about 17 months.
- The waiver plea was filed only after a personal-appearance direction.
- Further costs of ₹1,00,000 were imposed for the attempt to mislead.
- Tainted-hands litigants are not entitled to relief.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can costs imposed by a High Court be waived later?
A party may apply, but here the Court refused because the order was never challenged, the default lasted about 17 months, and the plea of no income contradicted the record.
Who receives the ₹1 lakh costs?
The High Court Legal Services Committee, Mumbai, within four weeks.
Does striking off the defence end the right to cross-examine?
No. The Court accepted that a defendant whose defence is struck off may still cross-examine witnesses, as held in Modula India v. Kamakshya Singh Deo, but declined to grant the husband relief under Article 227 because of his conduct.
Conclusion
The order is short but pointed: a spouse who ignores court orders and then pleads poverty against his own recorded income should expect the court to say no, and to add to the bill.
Practical takeaway: Comply with or challenge a costs order on time; a belated waiver plea that does not square with the record is likely to fail and cost more.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com