Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) Multiple prayers have been made in the writ petition. Primarily the petitioner seems to be aggrieved of the order of maintenance passed in Misc. Case No. 167 of 2005 and other consequential orders.
(2.) From the record of this case which reveals a chequered history of litigation, it would appear that seeking interim maintenance the respondent-wife filed an application which was registered as Misc. Case No. 30 of 1988. Finally, order of maintenance was passed on 24.07.1993 granting maintenance of Rs. 350/- per month to the respondent-wife and a direction was issued for deduction of the aforesaid amount from salary of the petitioner, however, the respondent-wife challenged the said order under Section 127 Cr. P.C. which was registered as Misc. Case No. 167 of 2005. By an order dated 04.10.2007 the amount of maintenance was enhanced to Rs. 3,000/-. Now it was the turn of the petitioner to challenge the order. He came to this Court in Cr. Revision No. 941 of 2007 which was allowed by an order dated 29.11.2007, remitting the matter back to the family court for a fresh decision. Misc. Case No. 167 of 2005, on remand, was again allowed by order dated 26.07.2008. The family court has awarded Rs. 3,000/- as maintenance to the respondent-wife. The criminal revision preferred by the petitioner against order dated 26.07.2008 was dismissed by this Court on 27.07.2009 and the Special Leave Petition preferred against the dismissal of Criminal Revision No. 585 of 2008 was dismissed by the Supreme Court by an order dated 26.10.2009. Thereafter, several orders have been passed against the petitioner in Misc. Case No. 167 of 2005 and Misc. Case No. 138 of 2009. In the present proceeding the petitioner has once again thrown a challenge to the final order passed in Misc. Case No. 167 of 2005 and the consequential orders of attachment of salary, distress warrant etc.
(3.) The aforesaid facts and the proceedings taken by the petitioner would disclose that the petitioner has abused the process of the Court. Merely because the law provides a forum for challenging an order, repeated challenge by a party to an order of the Court, for one reason or the other, would be, prima-facie, a reflection on the bonafide of the litigant. The petitioner seems to have taken a pledge to harass his wife, inspite of specific orders of the Court which have attained finality.;