The court clarified that there was no legal provision for the refund of maintenance paid under interim order when the final judgment denies maintenance to the wife.

( 1 ) A senior advocate Mr. Pandya for the applicant has come up with such a frivolous petition and is making all frivolous arguments. This is not expected from a senior advocate. Mr. Pandya deliberately wasted the time of the Court. Initially, he read the entire order impugned. Thereafter, he cited number of authorities, list of which he did not furnish to the Sheristadar. That resulted in the wasting of Court time.

( 2 ) THE learned advocate was allowed to argue to his heart s content. Having found that the court is not convinced of any of his submissions, he started reading the memo of petition. The Court had no other option but to refrain him from doing so. It is not expected from an advocate much less a senior advocate, to read memo of petition . An advocate is expected to formulate and advance a point and take the verdict of the Court. To read a memo of petition is nothing but a deliberate attempt on the part of the senior advocate who is practising in this Court for last so many years to see that the Court is tired out by wasting its time.

( 3 ) COMING to the merits of the case the petitioner husband is before this Court challenging the order passed by the Family Court No. 2, Ahmedabad on 10. 07. 2006 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 389 of 2003. The Court had earlier passed an order granting interim maintenance on 09. 09. 2004 and awarded Rs. 750/- is awarded to the applicant-wife and Rs. 500/- to the minor child as interim maintenance. After hearing the matter finally, the Court found that the wife is not entitled to get any maintenance. Hence rejected the application qua wife , whereas granted maintenance for minor child.

( 4 ) THE submission of Mr. Pandya is that, the Court ought to have passed an order directing the wife to refund the husband the total amount which he had paid to the wife under interim order . In support of this proposition, Mr. Pandya cited various decisions of which not one is applicable to the facts of the case.

( 5 ) MR. PANDYA firstly relied upon a decision of this Court in the matter of Karsanji Chatraji Hadiyol Vs. Jasuben Ramsingji Parmer and others, reported in 1998 (1) G. L. R. 231. He relied upon Head Note b of the decision which reads as under:criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (II of 1974) ? Sec. 125 (2) ? Interim order for maintenance is subject to final order ? Contention that Magistrate having once made an order of interim maintenance cannot direct that maintenance ordered in final order will be payable from date of Application - contention rejected. ? this decision nowhere says that in a case where the Court has passed an order granting maintenance by way of interim order and in final verdict, if it is held that wife is not entitled to any maintenance amount, then the amount paid is to be refunded to the wife. It is a very sorry state of affair that a senior advocate quotes the decision without understanding the contents of the judgement.

( 6 ) MR. PANDYA next relies upon a decision of the Hon ble the Apex Court in the matter of Deb Narayan Halder Vs. Anushree Halder (Smt), reported in (2003) 11 SCC 303. The learned advocate Mr. Pandya relied upon Head Note b :criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ? S. 401 ? Revision ? Findings of fact of trial court ? Reversal of, by High Court ? Propriety ? High Court not applying mind to the evidence on record or to the findings recorded by the trial court ? Hence said reversal, held, not proper ? Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ? S. 386. ? while the Court is in midst of the dictation, Mr. Pandya interrupted and submitted that he relied upon Head Note a rather than Head Note b . Head Note a reads as under : criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ? S. 125 ? Maintenance ? Wife having left her matrimonial home without any justifiable ground ? Held, not entitled to the grant of maintenance ? On facts, two reasons given by respondent wife for her ill-treatment by husband, namely, his greed for dowry and that the respondent was not good-looking, held, were non-existent ? Al

Click Here to Read the rest of this document