Wife does not get her lawyer and delays matter

Dear Mr. Sunil,

For proper reply to the circumstances of your case, it required to know the exact "Stage" of the proceeding before the Court of Law.

Anyhow, your Wife can't ask for the  numerous and unnecessary adjournments just with the intention to delay tactics and it is unacceptable before the Court of Law.  Your counsel can seek and initiate necessary steps for the proper and appropriate court proceedings. 

Kindly show your counsel the below and attached Court Judgments to advice the Hon'ble Magistrate of the Court for steps.

FIRST CASE:

Delhi High Court:- Delaying tactics by Wife in Divorce case liable for FINE. Rs. 50,000/- imposed as fine.

Sujata Aggarwal Vs Ravi Shankar Agarwal CM(M) 1146/2007 decided on 16.10.2008

The adjournment was sought by the proxy counsel on the ground that regular counsel could not come as his father was ill. The Court observed that it was the respondent who was to appear in the Court for her cross examination and she had been repeatedly avoiding to appear in the Court. Since there were no grounds given for her non-appearance, her defence was struck off by the Court.

It is noteworthy that on her ground of illness while she sought adjournments, she did not move an application that she be examined on commission. Her plea that she was not in a position to come to the Court because she had urinary problem had been rightly disbelieved by Trial Court. The Trial Court also rightly struck off her defence on the ground that she was unwilling to appear in Court and unwilling to lead evidence. 

19. I find that this petition is a frivolous petition and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. The petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000/-.

SECOND CASE LAW

M.R. Tyagi vs. Sri Devi Sahai Gautam Civil Appeal No. 3241/2006 decided on 2.8.2006

The Supreme Court in M.R. Tyagi vs. Sri Devi Sahai Gautam Civil Appeal No. 3241/2006 decided on 2.8.2006 made following observations in respect of grant of repeated adjournments by Courts: ............

“..at the same time we must impress upon the Courts that its approach, however liberal, must be in consonance with the interest of justice and fair to both the parties. Misplaced sympathy in favour of any of the parties results in injustice to the other party. The courts have the solemn duty to maintain a judicial balance. We must deprecate such irresponsible approach of Courts granting numerous and unnecessary adjournments in the strongest terms. The frequent grant of unnecessary adjournments has come in for very serious public criticism. It is not surprising that frequent adjournments are unnecessarily sought, but what is surprising is that Courts generously grant such adjournments, regardless of the fact that it results in delayed disposal of cases, involves loss of public time, increases the financial burden of the litigants, and tarnishes the image of the judiciary. It is high time Courts stop granting unnecessary adjournments. The High Courts must take serious note of adjournments freely granted, even if unnecessary, and as a follow up action call upon the judicial officers concerned, in appropriate cases, to justify the numerous and unnecessary adjournments granted.” 

Thank you very much Mr Ahmed.