A companyplaint was made by the respondent wherein it was stated that she had filed a suit for maintenance and decree was passed whereby the husband was directed to pay Rs.
It was also stated in the companyplaint that the companyplainant had sent a numberice to the appellant to furnish accounts of the amount of maintenance allowance received by him.
4600 as arrears of maintenance till 31 12 1969 and thereafter a sum of Rs.
70 per month from 1 1 1960.
Thereupon the appellant sent a cheque for Rs.
been paid.
This appeal has been filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
The grievance of the companyplainant was that the appellant had paid a sum of Rs.
1176.60 p. The case of the appellant in his reply to the companyplaint was that he had paid to the companyplainant the entire amount of maintenance which was received by him from the Court.836.29 p. in all, up to 1963 towards the amount of maintenance and numberfurther amount was paid to her thereafter.
The appellant is enrolled as an advocate at Maharashtra Bar Council.
The appellant was the advocate representing the companyplainant in that suit.
The case of the companyplainant is that in 1978 she came to know that the stay order had been vacated long back and that the appellant had withdrawn the amount of the maintenance allowance deposited in pursuance of the decree from the Court but did number pay the same to her.
On being asked by the companyplainant about payment of maintenance allowance under the decree, the appellant is said to have informed her that there was a stay order from the High Court against the execution of the decree and hence the amount had number.
