AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Chauhan, J.—The petitioner has preferred the writ petition claiming compensation of Rs. 10 crores from the government. He has further prayed for the implementation of the award of the Lok Adalat.
The brief facts of the case are that on 22-10-1999 the petitioner''s wife, Smt. Badam, filed a case against the petitioner under Sections 18 and 20 of Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act for maintenance before the Family Court No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The said case was registered as case No. 283/1999. Subsequently, she also filed another case u/s 125 Cr.P.C. for claiming maintenance from the petitioner. The said case was registered as Case No. 328/1999. Since the dispute was between the husband and the wife, both the cases were sent to the Lok Adalat, which was held on 29-7-2000. Before the Lok Adalat, the petitioner and his wife entered into a compromise, wherein the petitioner agreed to keep his wife with him, and to repay a loan borrowed by his wife. In view of the compromise, the Lok Adalat disposed of both the cases. However, as a follow up, both the cases were fixed on 4-9-2000. On 4-9-2000, while the petitioner''s wife appeared before the Court, the petitioner was absent. His wife pointed out certain defaults committed by the petitioner, which were contrary to the compromise entered between the parties. Therefore, the court ordered that the case be fixed for a future date. Thereafter, the cases were again placed before the Lok Adalat on 21-10-2000. The parties again entered into a compromise. Again in view of the compromise, the cases were disposed of by the Lok Adalat. The cases were directed to be listed before the concerned court on 8-1-2001. The cases were further directed to be listed on 15-3-2001. On 15-3-2001, again while the petitioner''s wife appeared, the petitioner was absent. Again the petitioner''s wife pointed out certain defaults committed by the petitioner, which were contrary to the compromise. Therefore, the cases were again ordered to be fixed for a future date. Again the petitioner''s wife filed an application seeking maintenance. Vide order dated 4-7-2003, the learned Family Court ordered the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,500/- per month to the wife. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed a criminal revision petition before this Court. But during the pendency of the revision petition, the parties again entered into compromise before the Family Court. Therefore, on 18-7-2005, the petitioner withdrew the revision petition.
Between 2001 and 2005, more specifically on 18-6-2002, the petitioner preferred a case for the child custody. However, the said case was dismissed on 4-7-2003. Aggrieved by the order dated 4-72003, the petitioner filed a Misc. Appeal before this Court. After hearing the children, this Court dismissed the said appeal vide order dated 5-11-2003.
Dr. Hanuman Sahai Mandawaria, the petitioner-in-person, has contended that despite the awards passed by the Lok Adalat, the Family Court kept the cases pending. Therefore, it kept him embroiled in needless litigation. Therefore, he is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 10 crores from the State.
On the other hand, Mr. M.A. Khan, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate, has contended that the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation because the learned Family Court has not committed any illegality. It has followed the procedure established by law. Further, since the petitioner did not comply with the conditions of the compromise, since the wife complained about his mis-behaviour, the court could not act on the award. After all, the court has to protect the interest of the wife as well. Further, the petitioner himself kept on contesting and filing new cases instead of maintaining his wife and the children. In such circumstances the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
This writ petition is a highly frivolous writ petition and deserves to be dismissed for the following reasons: firstly, the petitioner himself had entered into a compromise with his wife. But, the petitioner had failed to observe the condition of the compromise. According to his wife, he had flouted the conditions of the compromise. Moreover, on the date of hearing the petitioner was conspicuously absent from the Court. In order to protect the interest of the wife, in order to give a chance to the petitioner to place his side of the story before the Court, learned Family Court was justified in adjourning the cases to a future date. Therefore, the adjournments were made not so much as to harass the petitioner, but were made in the interest of justice. Secondly, according to the petitioner himself on 21-5-2003, he had moved an application for amending the reply. Similarly, on 20-122003, he moved a questionnaire. Moreover, on 23-8-2004, he moved an application in case No. 283/1999 and in case No. 328/1999. Naturally, the learned Family Court had to decide these applications. The case of the petitioner, is not the only case pending before the learned Family Court, but the learned Family Court is over-burdened by sky-rocketing litigations. The learned Family Court was justified in eventually deciding these applications vide order dated 12-4-2005. This delay of two years, from 2003 to 2005 is a reasonable delay. Thirdly, the petitioner himself filed the case for child custody. Fourthly, considering the conduct of the petitioner, in not honouring the compromise that he entered into with his wife, considering the fact that he kept on filing applications, considering the fact that he initiated other cases on his own, he cannot point an accusing finger towards the Family Court. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to payment of any compensation by the Government. initiated other cases on his own, he cannot point an accusing finger towards the Family Court. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to payment of any compensation by the Government.
In the result the petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Since the petitioner himself has argued the case, the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the petitioner at his residence.