Full Text
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.19157 OF 2024
Prajakta Siddhesh Paralkar …Petitioner
Mr. Abhijeet Sarvate, for the Petitioner.
Mr. P. D. Prasad Rao (through Video Conferencing) a/w. Ms. Devika
Purav, for the Respondent.
Ms. Seema Sarnaik, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. Preeti Walimbe.
PC:
JUDGMENT
1. Mr. Abhijeet Sarvate, learned Counsel appears for the Petitioner and Mr. P. D. Prasad Rao, learned Counsel along with Ms. Devika Purav appears for the Respondent, who have now instructions to appear for the Respondent.
2. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner-Wife has challenged the order dated 7th November 2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.9, Pune below Exhibit-96 in P. A. No.363 of 2020. In the said application bearing Exhibit-96 inter alia the Petitioner has sought the relief that one half of the sale-consideration of subject flat, after deduction of the loan amount, be directed to be deposited in the Court. The said application has been dismissed by the impugned Order dated 7th November 2024.
3. It is necessary to set out certain factual aspects:i. By Order dated 5th September 2020 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.4, Pune below Exhibit-5 in Petition A No.363 of 2020 inter alia the relief sought of temporary injunction is rejected. The relief sought in the said Exhibit-5 application is that by temporary injunction, the Respondent be directed not to sell the subject flat. The learned Trial Court while dismissing the said application has taken into consideration the statement made by the Respondent-Husband that the Respondent-Husband is ready to share half of the consideration with the Petitioner after clearing loan and also he is ready to bear the expenses of the child. ii. It is an admitted position that the Respondent-Husband has received an amount of Rs.1,70,00,000/- as consideration towards the sale of said flat and the loan was about Rs.8,00,000/-. Accordingly, 50% share of the Petitioner-Wife comes to about Rs.81,00,000/-. However, the said amount has not been paid or deposited in the Court and therefore, this Court has passed the following order on 23rd April 2025: “1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner pointed out the Order dated 5th September 2020 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.4, Pune below Exhibit - 5 in P. A No.363 of 2020, by which the Application for temporary injunction filed by the Petitioner - wife is rejected.
3. It is significant to note that the said Order is passed on the basis of statement made by the Respondent that the Respondent is willing to share half of the consideration of the suit flat after the payment of loan. The said statements are recorded in Paragraph No.6 and Paragraph No.12 of said Order dated 5th September 2020. The relevant portion of said Paragraph Nos.[6] and 12 are reproduced herein below for ready reference: “6....The respondent is willing to share half of the consideration for the suit flat, after disposing of the loan and is ready to bear the expenses of the child.
12. There is nothing to show that the petitioner would be suffering from an irreparable loss, as the respondent had given an offer across the bar, that in case the property is sold, he would share half of the consideration with her deducting the loan amount as permanent alimony or as an amount of permanent settlement....”
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that the loan is of Rs.8,00,000/-.
5. It is an admitted position that total consideration of the said flat was Rs.1,70,00,000/- and entire consideration has been received by the Respondent.
6. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent is that the said amount is to be paid as permanent alimony. However, it is required to be noted that said Order dated 5th September 2020 has been passed on the basis of said representation made by the Respondent. Thus, it is necessary that the said amount should be secured and available for the Court at the time of passing order regarding permanent alimony.
7. Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to deposit in this Court an amount of Rs.81,00,000/- on or before 2nd May 2025.
8. Stand over to 5th May 2025. To be shown ‘first on board’.” (Emphasis added) Thus, this Court directed the Respondent-Husband to deposit in this Court the said amount of Rs.81,00,000/- on or before 2nd May
2025. iii. Thereafter, the Respondent-Husband filed Review Petition No.100 of 2025 seeking review of said order dated 23rd April 2025 and the said Review Petition has been dismissed by this Court by order dated 10th July 2025. The said Review Petition has been dismissed by detailed order dated 10th July 2025. The observations in the said order dated 10th July 2025 as contained in Paragraph Nos.[6] to 10 are very relevant, which reads as under:- “6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the said Order dated 23rd April 2025 has been passed on the basis of the Order dated 5th September 2020 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.4, Pune below Exhibit - 5 in P. A No.363 of 2020. The said Order has been passed on an application filed by the Respondentwife for temporary injunction and interim maintenance.
7. Perusal of Order dated 5th September 2020 shows that at that time only, the relief which was pressed was of injunction as even the parties had not attended the meetings before the Councillor. It is required to be noted that the said Order has been passed during COVID pandemic. Perusal of said Order clearly shows that the learned Judge, Family Court No.4, Pune has recorded that the concerned flat was a share household of the Petitioner-Respondent and their son. In fact, it is also observed that the Petitioner-Husband would provide her suitable accommodation at the relevant time and instead of flat like said concerned flat of 3 BHK, alternate flat of 1 BHK would be sufficient for residence of the Respondent and her son. In fact one of the point which has been taken into consideration is that due to lockdown, an agreement in respect of said flat was executed on 12th June 2020. The said document was not registered, but the possession of the said flat was delivered by accepting Rs.11,00,000/- when Rs.1,70,00,000/- is said to be the consideration.
8. It is also to be noted that the learned Family Court has held that the Petitioner would not suffer irreparable loss as the Respondent has given an offer as noted in paragraph 12 of the Order of the learned Family Court. Thus, it is clear that the learned Family Court has taken into consideration the aspect that the said flat is shared household of the Respondent-wife and that she will not suffer irreparable loss in view of said submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner. Thus, it is clear that in effect the three parameters of granting interim relief namely prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss have been held in favour of the Respondent-wife.
9. Mr. Sarawate, learned Counsel for the Respondent also pointed out contention, which is sought to be raised in the Affidavit-in-Reply, which has been filed in Writ Petition No.1915[7] of 2024. Paragraph No.14 of the said Affidavit-in-Reply reads as under:
v. This matter was placed before this Court on 11th September 2025 and as the order dated 23rd April 2025 passed by this Court as confirmed by the Supreme Court has not been complied with, Ms. Seema Sarnaik, learned Senior Counsel along with Ms. Preeti Walimbe, learned Counsel took time to take instructions from the Respondent-Husband as to within how much time the Respondent- Husband would comply with the order dated 23rd April 2025 and therefore, the matter has been kept on 15th September 2025 i.e. yesterday (First on Board). On 11th September 2025, this Court expressed that if the Respondent fails to comply with the order passed by this Court as confirmed by the Supreme Court, action is required to be taken against the Respondent for committing Contempt of the Court. At that time, Ms. Seema Sarnaik, learned Senior Counsel assured the Court that she would take instructions from the Petitioner about the time required for compliance of said order dated 23rd April 2025 passed by this Court as confirmed by the Supreme Court. vi. In the above background of the matter, it is shocking to note that Mr. P. D. Prasad Rao, learned Advocate along with Ms. Devika Purav, learned Advocate appeared for the Respondent on 15th September 2025 and submitted that the Respondent has now instructed them to appear in the matter.
4. In this behalf, it is significant to note the Rules governing Advocates framed by the Bar Council of India concerning Standards of Professional conduct and Etiquette framed under Section 49(1) of the Advocate Act, 1961. The relevant rules are as under: “Preamble An advocate shall, at all times, comport himself in a manner befitting his status as an officer of the Court/a privileged member of the community and a gentleman, bearing in mind that what may be lawful and moral for a person who is not a member of the Bar, or for a member of the Bar in his nonprofessional capacity may still be improper for an advocate. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing obligation, an Advocate shall fearlessly uphold the interests of his client, and in his conduct conform to the rules hereinafter mentioned both in letter and in spirit. The rules hcreinafter mentioned contain canons of conduct and etiquette adopted as general guides, yet the specific mention thereof shall not be construed as a denial of the existence of others equally imperative though not specifically mentioned. Section I-Duty to the Court
1. An Advocate shall, during the presentation of his case and while otherwise acting before a Court, conduct himself with dignity and self-respect. He shall not be servile and whenever there is proper ground for serious complaint against a judicial officer, it shall be his right and duty to submit his grievance to proper authorities.
2. An Advocate shall maintain towards the Court a respectful attitude, bearing in mind that the dignity of the judicial office is essential for the survival of a free community.
3. An Advocate shall not influence the decision of a Court by any illegal or improper means. Private communication with a judge relating to a pending case are forbidden.
4. An Advocate shall use his best efforts to restrain and prevent his client from resorting to sharp or unfair practices or from doing anything in relation to the Court, opposing counsel or parties which the Advocate himself ought not to do. An advocate shall refuse to represent the client who persists in such improper conduct. He shall not consider himself a mere mouthpiece of the client and shall exercise his own judgment in the use of restrained language in correspondence avoiding scurrilous attacks in pleadings, and using intemperate language during arguments in Courts.” Thus, an Advocate shall act at all times in a manner befitting his status as an officer of the Court. An Advocate shall conduct himself with dignity and self respect. An Advocate shall not influence the decision of a Court by any illegal or improper means. An Advocate shall use his best efforts to restrain and prevent his client from resorting to sharp or unfair practices or from doing anything in relation to the Court. An Advocate shall refuse to represent the client who persists in such improper conduct. He shall not consider himself a mere mouthpiece of the client.
5. This is a case where in fact, the Respondent-Husband has obtained order from the learned Family Court dated 5th September 2020 by making misleading statements that he would share 50% of the sale-consideration with the wife. This Court by order dated 23rd April 2025 has directed the Respondent-Husband to deposit in this Court said 50% share i.e. an amount of Rs.81,00,000/- on or before 2nd May 2025. The Respondent-Husband has sought review of that order which has been dismissed by order dated 10th July
2025. Thereafter, on 14th August 2025, the said order dated 23rd April 2025 passed by this Court has been challenged before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has dismissed the Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No (s). 23719 of 2025 by order dated 22nd August 2025. Thus, the order directing deposit of the said amount of Rs.81,00,000/- in this Court has been confirmed by the Supreme Court and in this background on 11th September 2025 Ms. Sarnaik, learned Senior Counsel took time to take instructions about the time limit within which the Respondent would comply with the said order and would deposit the said amount of Rs.81,00,000/- in this Court and therefore the matter has been directed to be kept on 15th September 2023 (First on Board). Immediately thereafter the Respondent has engaged new Advocate. This is a case where in a part-heard matter where the Respondent has admittedly not complied with the order dated 23rd April 2025 passed by this Court as confirmed by the Supreme Court has engaged another Advocate. It is also an admitted position that Mr. P. D. Prasad Rao and Ms. Devika Purav, learned Advocates have not taken any information from Ms. Seema Sarnaik, learned Senior Counsel as well as Ms. Preeti Walimbe, learned Counsel about the stage of the matter. However, Mr. Rao, learned Advocate states that he has taken instructions from the Respondent.
6. This is a case where the matter is part-heard and on 11th September 2025, this Court had expressed that if the Respondent- Husband fails to comply with the order dated 23rd passed by this Court as confirmed by the Supreme Court then the Court will have no option but to issue contempt notice to the Respondent and therefore Ms. Seema Sarnaik, learned Senior Counsel took time to take instructions about the time limit within which the said order would be complied with and thereafter new Advocates have been engaged by the Respondent.
7. In view of the above factual position, it is necessary to set out the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Kusha Duruka vs. State of Odisha[1] and more particularly, paragraph Nos.[1] to 6 of the same, which read as under: “ Leave granted. This is another case in which an effort has been made to pollute the stream of administration of justice.
2. About three decades ago, this Court in Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma [Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma, (1995) 1 SCC 421: 1995 SCC (Cri) 239] was faced with a situation where an attempt was made to deceive the Court and interfere with the administration of justice. The litigant was held to be guilty of contempt of court. It was a case in which the husband had filed fabricated document to oppose the prayer of his wife seeking transfer of matrimonial proceedings. Finding him guilty of contempt of court, he was sentenced to two weeks' imprisonment by this Court. This Court observed as under: (SCC pp. 423-24 & 427, paras 1-2 & 14) “1. The stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of court's atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of court's environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned.
2. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud, deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice. * * *
14. The legal position thus is that if the publication be with intent to deceive the court or one made with an intention to defraud, the same would be contempt, as it would interfere with administration of justice. It would, in any case, tend to interfere with the same. This would definitely be so if a fabricated document is filed with the aforesaid mens rea. In the case at hand the fabricated document was apparently to deceive the court; the intention to defraud is writ large. Anil Kumar is, therefore, guilty of contempt.”
3. In K.D. Sharma v. SAIL [K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC 481] it was observed by this Court: (SCC p. 493, para 39) “39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and “clean breast” cannot hold a writ of the court with “soiled hands”. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court.” (emphasis supplied)
4. In Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. [Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114: (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 324], this Court noticed the progressive decline in the values of life and the conduct of the new creed of litigants, who are far away from truth. It was observed as under: (SCC pp. 116-17, paras 1-2)
5. In Moti Lal Songara v. Prem Prakash [Moti Lal Songara v. Prem Prakash, this Court, considering the issue regarding concealment of facts before the Court, observed that “court is not a laboratory where children come to play”, and opined as under: (SCC p. 208, paras 19-20)
6. It was held in the judgments referred to above that one of the two cherished basic values by Indian society for centuries is “satya” (truth) and the same has been put under the carpet by the petitioner. Truth constituted an integral part of the justicedelivery system in the pre-Independence era, however, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In the last 40 years, the values have gone down and now litigants can go to any extent to mislead the court. They have no respect for the truth. The principle has been evolved to meet the challenges posed by this new breed of litigants. Now it is well settled that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. Suppression of material facts from the court of law, is actually playing fraud with the court. The maxim suppressio veri, expressio falsi i.e. suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted. It is nothing but degradation of moral values in the society, may be because of our education system. Now we are more happy to hear anything except truth; read anything except truth; speak anything except truth and believe anything except truth. Someone rightly said that:“Lies are very sweet, while truth is bitter, that's why most people prefer telling lies.” [Emphasis added]
8. Thus, the Supreme Court has inter alia set out the principles that anyone who takes recourse to fraud, deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shakes the faith of people in the system of administration of justice. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system which was in vogue in the pre- Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post- Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is required to be dealt with as per the provisions of law. These observations of the Supreme Court are squarely applicable to this case.
9. This is a case where, by misleading the learned Judge of the Family Court, the Respondent-Husband has obtained the order dated 5th September 2020 by which temporary injunction application filed by the Petitioner-Wife, has been rejected. This Court by order dated 23rd April 2025 directed the Respondent- Husband to deposit in this Court an amount of Rs.81,00,000/- out of total consideration of Rs.1,70,00,000/- received by him by sale of the subject flat, as the statement that the Respondent is willing to share half of the consideration of the subject flat after payment of loan was the basis of the order dated 5th September 2020 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Pune.
10. As already noted, the said order dated 10th July 2025 of this Court has been sought to be reviewed by the Respondent-Husband and the said Review Petition has been dismissed by order dated 10th July 2025 passed by this Court. Thereafter, on 14th August 2025, Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No (s). 23719 of 2025 has been filed challenging the order dated 23rd passed by this Court and the said Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No (s). 23719 of 2025 has also been dismissed by order dated 22nd August 2025. Thereafter when this Court has expressed that the Respondent-Husband has to comply with the said order April 2025 as confirmed by the Supreme Court and when Ms. Seema Sarnaik, learned Senior Counsel took time to take instructions regarding deposit of the said amount and that this Court expressed that if the Respondent-Husband fails to comply with the said order dated 23rd April 2025 as confirmed by the Supreme Court, then contempt notice is required to be issued, immediately thereafter a new Advocate i.e. Mr. P. D. Prasad Rao along with Ms. Devika Purav, Advocate appear in the matter.
11. In any case, to give one more opportunity to the the Respondent-Husband to comply with the order dated 23rd April 2025 passed by this Court, stand over to 22nd September 2025.
12. Although, in view of the subsequent developments, I am discharging Advocate Preeti Walimbe, however, Ms. Seema Sarnaik, learned Senior Counsel and Ms. Preeti Walimbe, learned Counsel are requested to assist this Court.
13. Stand over to 22nd September 2025. To be listed fairly high on board. [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]