This also happened in our country. A lawyer tricked a young widow to lodge cases against her Mother In Law. The judge immediately declined the prayer saying there is no such provision under the said law. not only that, the honorable judge went ahead, issued an directive, to advise all the advocates not to use ill practices and misguide litigants in filing baseless cases just to loot some money from them. Please read the complete story below:
MUMBAI: The principal judge of the family court recently reprimanded a lawyer and directed a legal services authority to warn all advocates on its panel not to give wrong counselling to litigants and exploit them.
The warning came after the court found that a lawyer had given wrong advice to a widow to file a claim for maintenance from her mother-in-law. The widow (28) with a child lost her husband to the 2005 deluge, after which her mother-in-law got compensation.
Dismissing the woman’s petition, judge Laxmi P Rao said, “The registrar of this court is directed to write a letter to the secretary, Mumbai Suburban District Legal Services Authority, Bandra to inform all advocates on the panel not to indulge in ill advising and misleading of the poor litigants, who approach them for justice.” Referring to the petitioner’s lawyer, the judge said, “Such an advocate, who does not have the basic knowledge of law, makes women who are already suffering to further undergo the trauma of litigation, which is fruitless, which is fruitless.”
The judge said the petitioner should have been told to file a recovery suit against the government and the family instead of claiming a maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC. The judge said under this section the petition can be made for maintenance only against the husband by a wife and against the father by a child. “The petition under the section lies on by against a male and can never be against a female. Hence, at the outset, this petition will not fall under the definition of Section 125 of CrPC,” the judge observed.
Razia Anwar (name changed) filed a petition seeking maintenance of Rs 3,000 per month each for herself and her minor daughter on August 9, 2009. Razia had told the court she got married to Abdul Anwar in April 2003 in Kurla. At that time, she was a widow and her husband was a widower with children. The couple had a daughter in November 2004. Razia alleged that after Abdul died in 2005, her mother-in-law agreed to take care of her but later went back on her word. She said her mother-in-law received Rs 2 lakh compensation by concealing the fact that she was Abdul’s wife. Hence she filed the petition in August 2009.