AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks the following prayers:
“A. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction including a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to collectively pay adequate public-law compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) to the Petitioner for the alleged unlawful deprivation of his personal liberty and violation ofArticle 21 of the Constitution of India arising from his illegal arrest and incarceration for a period exceeding 24 hours in the circumstances set out in the present Writ Petition .
B. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No. 4 to refund the sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) wrongfully received by her from the Petitioner on 17.10.2026, along with interest at such rate as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, within a timebound period as may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.
C. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent No. 4 to pay further compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) to the Petitioner on account of her alleged mala fide and fraudulent institution and pursuit of the execution proceedings seeking recovery of an amount not payable to her, which formed the root of the hardship, coercive proceedings, arrest and incarceration suffered by the Petitioner.
D. Direct an independent inquiry into the institution and pursuit of the execution proceedings by Respondent No. 4 as well as into the circumstances leading to his arrest and incarceration for a period exceeding 24 hours and direct appropriate civil, departmental and/or criminal action, in accordance with law, against Respondent No. 4 and all officials, authorities or other persons found responsible for the Petitioner’s illegal arrest and incarceration.
E. Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
It is the case of the petitioner that vide orders dated 29.07.2024 and 24.09.2024, the Family Court had imposed costs aggregating to Rs. 20,000/-, out of which Rs. 5,000/- was payable to Respondent No. 4 and the remaining Rs. 15,000/- was payable to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DLSA).
It is contended that Respondent No. 4, despite being entitled to only Rs. 5,000/-, instituted execution proceedings on 24.03.2025 seeking recovery of Rs. 15,000/- in her favour, without properly disclosing the allocation of costs under the original orders.
The petitioner further contends that on 18.08.2026, he paid Rs. 5,000/- to Respondent No. 4 and deposited the remaining Rs. 15,000/-with the DLSA, thereby discharging the entire cost liability of Rs. 20,000/-, as duly recorded in the order sheet of the Family Court.
It is contended that despite the aforesaid payments, the execution proceedings continued and the petitioner was arrested from his residence on 15.10.2026 and produced before the Family Court, where he was remanded to civil imprisonment. It is contended that he was produced before the Family Court again on 16.10.2026, when he was directed to deposit a further sum of Rs. 15,000/-, which he deposited, following which an order for his release was passed. The petitioner alleges that Respondent No. 4 thereafter collected the additional amount of Rs. 15,000/- on 17.10.2026, despite having already received Rs. 5,000/- and the DLSA having received the remaining amount under the original cost orders.
At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the entire controversy emanates from matrimonial proceedings pending between the petitioner and Respondent No. 4 before the Learned Family Court. The allegations raised in the present petition, including those concerning the institution of execution proceedings, the alleged suppression of material facts by Respondent No. 4 and the subsequent arrest of the petitioner, are connected with the said matrimonial dispute and the proceedings arising therefrom.
In the present case, the petitioner has sought to project the controversy as one involving unlawful deprivation of personal liberty. However, the events complained of arise directly from execution proceedings emanating from the orders passed by the Learned Family Court in the pending matrimonial proceedings. Whether the said orders passed in the Execution proceedings were appropriate are disputed questions of fact and cannot be adjudicated by this Court while exercising writ jurisdiction.
This Court is of the opinion that the extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be permitted to become a forum for the parties to a matrimonial dispute to pursue their personal grievances against each other or to settle scores arising out of their matrimonial discord. The writ jurisdiction cannot be converted into an instrument for pursuing private vendettas or for granting parties an additional forum to ventilate grievances arising out of proceedings pending before another competent judicial forum.
In the opinion of this Court, the filing of the present petition amounts to an abuse of the process of law and has unnecessarily engaged the time of this Court.
This Court was, accordingly, inclined to impose costs upon the petitioner. However, upon the insistence of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the imposition of costs is waived.
Insofar as the contention pertaining to any excess amount having been paid to Respondent No. 4 is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to file an appropriate application before the appropriate Court.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.