VARSHABEN KALPESHBHAI RAJPUT Vs. KALPESH AMBALAL RAJPUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.01.2018 passed below Exh. 31, as also the order dated 06.02.2018 passed below Exh. 46 and 47 in H.M.P. No. 446 of 2013 pending before the Family Court, Vadodara.

(2.) The Court earlier had heard learned advocate Mr. B.K. Raj for the petitioner, however, during the pendency of the petition, he had retired from the case, and the petitioner Varshaben Kalpeshbhai Rajput had sought permission to appear party-in-person in the petition. The Court therefore had heard the petitioner in person. During the course of hearing, the Advocate Mr. Ashwin Acharya, who was appearing for the petitioner in the Family Court, and who had allegedly behaved rudely with the said Court, had tendered an apology on affidavit on 28.04.2018, which was taken on record. Nobody appears for the respondent though duly served.

(3.) Having regard to the submissions made by and on behalf of the petitioner, and the record of the case, it appears that the respondent is the husband of the petitioner, who has filed H.M.P. No. 446 of 2013 in the Family Court, Vadodara seeking divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The petitioner had also filed an application being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 84 of 2013 seeking maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., in which the Family Court had granted interim maintenance @ Rs. 8,000/- per month. Both the proceedings were pending before the same Court. On 20.12.2017, the learned advocate for the petitioner had sought time to argue Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 84 of 2013, which was granted by the Court subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid before the next date of hearing. It appears that on 15.01.2018, the learned advocate for the respondent had sought time as per application Exh. 75, on which the Court had passed the order below Exh. 74 that the applicant had not deposited Rs. 10,000/- as per the order passed below Exh. 74, and therefore, the matter was adjourned to 16.01.2018 for arguments. It further appears that on 16.01.2018, the learned advocate Mr. A.B. Acharya appearing for the petitioner - applicant, had tried to misbehave with the Court, and therefore, the Court had cancelled the permission granted to the petitioner to engage an Advocate. It appears that the Family Court thereafter had passed an order below Exh. 31 for cancellation of the vakalatnama of Mr. Acharya to appear for the petitioner i.e. the opponent in the H.M.P. on 16.01.2018.