The Allahabad High Court has levied a substantial compensatory cost of Rs 15 lakh upon an advocate, deeming his petition for the expeditious resolution of a maintenance case against his wife as vexatious and founded on deliberate misrepresentations. Justice Vinod Diwakar, presiding over the bench, delivered the stern judgment, citing the petitioner-husband’s pattern of suppressing material facts within his affidavits and thereby subjecting his wife to a prolonged period of financial strain and what the court characterized as “systemic depletion.” The court’s findings revealed that the advocate, despite being an able-bodied legal practitioner, had not only failed to disclose a prior maintenance order that favored him but had also allegedly diverted significant personal loans obtained by his wife for his own ostentatious lifestyle and expenditures on alcoholic beverages.
The intricate legal battle stems from the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent, which took place on May 18, 2019. At the time of their union, both individuals were engaged in preparations for competitive examinations. Shortly thereafter, the wife successfully secured employment as an additional private secretary within the Allahabad High Court. In contrast, the petitioner, a law graduate and a registered advocate, remained unemployed. As is often the case in such circumstances, disputes soon emerged, leading to a series of legal entanglements between the couple. The husband initiated proceedings by filing a maintenance application before the principal judge of the family court in Etawah. Following this, he approached the high court with a plea to expedite the ongoing proceedings, asserting a lack of independent financial resources for his subsistence.
Information reaching TahirRihat.com suggests that the respondent-wife presented a detailed account of her husband’s financial conduct. She alleged that on November 10, 2020, her husband obtained a personal loan amounting to Rs 11.50 lakh from her SBI salary account, which has a branch at the Lucknow bench of the high court. This was allegedly achieved by fraudulently gaining her confidence under the false pretense of purchasing a plot of land. The pattern of financial transactions continued, as the respondent stated that on October 6, 2022, the petitioner again secured a personal loan of Rs 13.56 lakh from her SBI account at the Jhalwa branch in Prayagraj. This loan is slated for repayment over a six-year period. The respondent-wife has been diligently making monthly installments of Rs 26,020 since then, with the repayment obligation extending until October 2028. According to the respondent’s submissions, the loans, ostensibly for property acquisition, were instead fraudulently channeled into the petitioner’s personal account through UPI transactions. These funds, she claimed, were then dissipated on a lavish lifestyle, alcoholic consumption, and other activities deemed “nefarious.”
Further complicating the marital discord, it was argued on behalf of the wife that she had filed for divorce due to being “fed up by the petitioner.” Subsequently, on May 20, 2025, the husband filed an application for maintenance, which the wife’s counsel contended was based on fabricated and untruthful assertions. The family court, on September 15, 2025, granted this application, ordering the wife to pay Rs 5,000 per month as interim maintenance and an additional Rs 10,000 towards litigation expenses. The wife challenged this order by filing a review application, which remains pending before the family court in Prayagraj. The High Court, after a thorough examination of the petitioner’s conduct throughout the litigation, expressed its strong disapproval. The court explicitly noted that the entirety of the loan amounts had been “unauthorizedly misused by the petitioner-husband,” a conclusion drawn from the discernible pattern of withdrawals and transfers, many of which involved substantial sums moved via UPI and similar digital payment methods.
In light of these findings, the High Court concluded that the petition filed by the advocate did not warrant the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction. The court stated, “Accordingly, the equity demands that the present petition be dismissed with the compensatory cost of Rs 15,00,000 to be given to the respondent-wife within six weeks from today by way of a demand draft.” The court further stipulated that should the petitioner fail to deposit the cost money within the stipulated timeframe, the District Magistrate of Etawah would be responsible for its recovery as arrears of land revenue, with a three-month window for such action after the expiry of the petitioner’s grace period. In a significant move to ensure accountability and transparency, the court also directed the District Magistrate to immediately constitute a committee tasked with inquiring into the movable and immovable assets owned or possessed by the petitioner. This inquiry is to commence promptly upon receipt of the court order, facilitating its record and ensuring compliance with the court’s directives.
Tahir Rihat (also known as Tahir Bilal) is an independent journalist, activist, and digital media professional from the Chenab Valley of Jammu and Kashmir, India. He is best known for his work as the Online Editor at The Chenab Times.