Readers of these blogs have been advised to be careful in selection of lawyers. Selection of a lawyer is probably more important than selection of a spouse in the current divorce driven scenario !!
The adversarial court system is best suited to "fight and win" . the system of appeals and running around courts is meant to fight …long and hard … NOT to patch up Unfortunately , once differences crop up, married couple are driven into this system due to anger and greed !!! While the couple claim that they were ready to pay Rs 20000 for a mutual consent divorce, the lawyer thought otherwise !!!!
************************************************
Warring couple unites in fight against lawyer
Saturday, Aug 10, 2013, 0:36 IST | Place: Pune | Agency: DNAChaitraly Deshmukh
He has filed a case against duo claiming non-payment of fee
A couple who was seeking divorce came together in a fight against their lawyer over fees. The lawyer, whom the couple had earlier consulted for a mutual divorce, has filed a case against them claiming that they didn't pay him for his advice after they patched up.
While the lawyer claimed that it was a deliberate move to waste his time, the Bombay High court justice KU Chandiwal has dismissed the lawyer's plea stating that his claims were absurd.
Lawyer Mayuresh Kulkarni had filed a private case before the court of judicial magistrate (first class) against the couple for cheating and criminal conspiracy for not paying his professional fee. The JMFC court issued a case against the couple on February 15, 2012. Meanwhile, the couple appealed in the additional sessions court in Pune, who held the order of lower court.
The couple Sanjay Kelkar (35) and his wife Sanjana (32) (names changed) then filed a criminal writ petition at the Bombay High court by their lawyers KM Irani, Devendra Saralkar and AA Kocharekar. As per the prosecution case, the couple had differences in their matrimonial life had approached lawyer Kulkarni for his legal advice. They had 4-5 sittings after which the husband said a petition for divorce by mutual consent could be filed and the lawyer sent an e-mail draft of such consent petition to the wife, while it did not reach the husband. However, they did not respond to him.
The lawyer claimed that he felt deceived as his skill in legal profession was utilised and a fraud was played upon him by the couple by using the draft of mutual divorce.
However, during the submissions of counsel for the couple, lawyer KM Irani told the judge that the couple is ready to pay Rs20,000 without prejudice to their rights, but Kulkarni rejected the proposal and instead asked for Rs50,000.
Irani said, "The couple was at loggerheads at the initial stage and it could not be termed that they had hatched a conspiracy to deceive an advocate known to them."
Kulkarni maintained that since the couple availed services and didn't pay, element of deception is apparent.
Justice Chandiwal in his order observed, "It is absurd to think of a couple to hatch a conspiracy and approach an advocate making a show of differences in their marital life."
He has filed a case against duo claiming non-payment of fee
A couple who was seeking divorce came together in a fight against their lawyer over fees. The lawyer, whom the couple had earlier consulted for a mutual divorce, has filed a case against them claiming that they didn't pay him for his advice after they patched up.
While the lawyer claimed that it was a deliberate move to waste his time, the Bombay High court justice KU Chandiwal has dismissed the lawyer's plea stating that his claims were absurd.
Lawyer Mayuresh Kulkarni had filed a private case before the court of judicial magistrate (first class) against the couple for cheating and criminal conspiracy for not paying his professional fee. The JMFC court issued a case against the couple on February 15, 2012. Meanwhile, the couple appealed in the additional sessions court in Pune, who held the order of lower court.
The couple Sanjay Kelkar (35) and his wife Sanjana (32) (names changed) then filed a criminal writ petition at the Bombay High court by their lawyers KM Irani, Devendra Saralkar and AA Kocharekar. As per the prosecution case, the couple had differences in their matrimonial life had approached lawyer Kulkarni for his legal advice. They had 4-5 sittings after which the husband said a petition for divorce by mutual consent could be filed and the lawyer sent an e-mail draft of such consent petition to the wife, while it did not reach the husband. However, they did not respond to him.
The lawyer claimed that he felt deceived as his skill in legal profession was utilised and a fraud was played upon him by the couple by using the draft of mutual divorce.
However, during the submissions of counsel for the couple, lawyer KM Irani told the judge that the couple is ready to pay Rs20,000 without prejudice to their rights, but Kulkarni rejected the proposal and instead asked for Rs50,000.
Irani said, "The couple was at loggerheads at the initial stage and it could not be termed that they had hatched a conspiracy to deceive an advocate known to them."
Kulkarni maintained that since the couple availed services and didn't pay, element of deception is apparent.
Justice Chandiwal in his order observed, "It is absurd to think of a couple to hatch a conspiracy and approach an advocate making a show of differences in their marital life."
No comments:
Post a Comment