Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: While deliberating over the instant petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution seeking quashment of maintenance proceedings against the petitioner’s son and levelling allegations against 4th Additional Sessions, Judge, Srinagar, before whom the maintenance proceedings are pending; the Bench of Sanjeev Kumar, J.*, found the instant petition to be misconceived, and came down heavily on the petitioner for using abhorrent language in the petition demeaning to a woman and totally unacceptable in any civilized society. The Court further found that the petitioner lacked any locus to file the petition and the same was aimed at harassing the Presiding Officer of the 4th Additional Sessions, Judge.
The Court took extreme cognizance of the petitioner’s lack of trust in almost every judge of the Court and the obnoxious allegations levelled against Respondent 2, who happened to be the petitioner’s daughter-in-law. The Court went on to term the petitioner as “a cancer for the judicial system” due to his nuisance in harassing the Judges at all levels and thereby imposed exemplary costs of Rs 1 Lakhs.
The petitioner approached with the instant petition seeking to quash maintenance proceedings before the 4th Additional Sessions, Judge, Srinagar filed by Respondent 2 under Section 488 of Jammu and Kashmir Code of Criminal Procedure (repealed) against his son. The petitioner claimed that he is contesting the maintenance proceedings on behalf of his son as the petitioner holds a valid Power of Attorney executed by his son.
The petitioner further argued that his son has divorced Respondent 2 and, therefore, the maintenance proceeding is not maintainable.
Perusing the petition and allegations levelled by the petitioner, the Court noted that instant petition was filed by the petitioner in his own name and not for or on behalf of the son. Furthermore, the Court pointed out that the allegations made by the petitioner against Respondent 2 would shock the conscience of any person of ordinary prudence. “The allegations made only exhibit the depraved mindset the petitioner has for woman, particularly his daughter-in-law”. The Court expressed its utter disgust at the language of the petition and the allegations, stating that they were in extremely bad taste. “The petitioner has no sense of decency and is not aware as to how the pleadings in the Court are required to be filed”.
The Court pointed out that the petitioner did not place anything on record that proves the allegations he levelled against the Additional Sessions Judge.
The Court also noted that the petitioner was a habitual litigant and had been filing petition after petition to settle score with Respondent 2 and some other disputes with his former employer.
The Court pointed out that even if the petitioner may be the attorney holder of his son, he cannot file a petition in his own name.
Thus, sternly reproaching the attitude of the petitioner and the obnoxious language used in the instant petition, the Court was of the prima facie opinion that, “The petitioner needs psychiatric help or treatment so that his unchecked indulgence in abusing the process of law is stopped”.
Given the petitioner’s propensity to abuse the process of law, the Court imposed exemplary costs of Rs 1 lakhs and directed the petitioner to deposit the amount in the Litigants’ Welfare Fund within a period of four weeks.
[Abdul Gani Bhat v. Gowhar Majeed Dalal, 2024 SCC OnLine J&K 468, decided on 07-06-2024]
*Judgment by Justice Sanjeev Kumar
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Petitioner present in person
Buy Constitution of India HERE
