Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gaurav Gupta vs Kavita Hooda And Others on 22 October, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137923
CWP-22434-2024 (O&M). -1-
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT
CHANDIGARH.
112
CWP-22434-2024 (O&M).
Date of Decision: 22.10.2024.
GAURAV GUPTA
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
KAVITA HOODA AND OTHERS
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.
Present: Petitioner in person,
(Through Video Conference)
Mr. M.B. Rajwade, Advocate, with
Ms. Shubreet Kaur, Advocate,
for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, DAG, Haryana.
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J )ORAL).
CM-17362-CWP-2024
Application is allowed as prayed for subject to all just
exceptions.
Written submissions are taken on record.
The Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137923
CWP-22434-2024 (O&M). -2-
MAIN CASE
The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India, for seeking issuance of directions to the
respondent No.2-Additional District Judge, Family Court, District and
Sessions Court, Rohtak, neither to hear respondent No.1 (estranged wife of
the petitioner) nor to grant any relief to her.
2 Petitioner appearing in person through video conference
contends that respondent No.1-his estranged wife has been indulging in
institution of false cases and claims against him by suppression of relevant
essential facts in relation to her employment, her assets and liabilities and
also the duration of her appointment along with the salary being paid to her.
In this manner, she has been playing hide and seek with the Hon'ble Courts.
The position in law being well settled that where a person does not
approach the Courts with clean hands, he or she is not entitled for any relief,
as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramjas
Foundation and another Vs. Union of India and others, Civil Appeal
No.6662 of 2004 decided on 09.11.2010 she should not be granted any
hearing. He further relies upon the judgment in the matter of Moti Lal
Songara Vs. Prem Prakash @ Pappu and another, reported as (2013) 9
SCC 199, and contends that suppression of the truth is equivalent to the
expression of falsehood and that the Court cannot be a place where people
can take chances and play fraud with the Court. Where a litigant tries to
gain advantage by suppression of facts and a fraudulent intention is
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137923
CWP-22434-2024 (O&M). -3-
manifested in the proceedings, such litigant ought to be suitably penalized.
Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
the matter of the Hari Krishna Mandir Trust Vs. State of Maharashtra,
Civil Appeal No.6156 of 2013 decided on 07.08.2020 to contend that it is
the duty of the Courts to exercise its powers against a fraudulent litigant and
that where there is a breach of an obligation by the litigant of coming to the
Court with clean hands, suitable cost ought to be imposed. He further
submits that this Court ought to direct initiation of proceedings for contempt
against respondent No.1-Kavita Hooda for institution of multiple
proceedings by suppression of factual aspects and costs be also imposed on
her.
3 I have heard the petitioner appearing in person as well as the
counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3.
4 It is evident from a perusal of the prayer made by the petitioner
that the petitioner claims that the Court ought not to grant an opportunity of
hearing to respondent No.1-his estranged wife to establish her case because
there have been certain instances of suppression of facts by respondent
No.1. Denial or rejection of a relief cannot be equated to restraining a
person from approaching the Court of law. The law provides availability of
constitutional remedies to every person and as to whether there is a
suppression or not is an element which is determined by the Court, after the
parties have been heard. There cannot be a presumption that in case a
person has committed a wrong once, he shall always be inclined to commit
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137923
CWP-22434-2024 (O&M). -4-
such repeated acts of default. Each case is to be decided on the basis of
evidence that has been led before a Court of law and no presumption can be
drawn against a person merely because he/she indulges in an act, which
may be an act of fraud on the Court. Hence, the judgments referred to by the
petitioner in the cases of Ramjas Foundation and another; Moti Lal
Songara Vs. Prem Prakash @ Pappu and another; and Hari Krishna
Mandir Trust (supra) would have no applicability as they relate to a
decision to grant a relief, in the event, a Court, on hearing the parties, forms
an opinion that any party (respondent in this case) has concealed the facts.
The same are not the precedents to debar a constitutional remedy to a
person. To oust a litigant from being heard would be deprivation of the
constitutional rights. Hence, the arguments addressed by the petitioner in
person are rejected.
5 So far as the prayer for initiation of contempt proceedings
against the respondent No.1 is concerned, the same is a matter between a
litigant and the Court and it is not upto a litigant to direct initiation of
contempt proceedings. The same is to be left to the discretion of the Court
which is seized of the matter.
6 Adverting to the next prayer of the petitioner for grant of
compensation for the agony caused to him due to institution of cases against
him, the same is an issue which the petitioner is required to press before the
Family Court which is seized of the matter.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137923
CWP-22434-2024 (O&M). -5-
7 For the reasons as aforesaid, I find that the present petition is
misconceived and proposes what is contrary to the right of constitutional
remedies enshrined and extended to every citizen. The present petition is
accordingly dismissed in limine.
8 At this stage, petitioner submits that the matter is pending
before the Family Court, Panipat, for the last five years and that he would
be satisfied in case Family Court, Panipat, is directed to decide the matter
expeditiously.
9 The Family Court, Panipat, is requested to take an expeditious
decision in the pending application.
October 22, 2024. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ)
raj arora JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
