Improper to Impose Heavy Costs Where Litigant Seeks Withdrawal of Application Filed Under Legal Misapprehension.

The petitioner (wife) and respondent (husband) are embroiled in a child custody dispute (Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 8 of 2024) following a withdrawn divorce petition.

During proceedings, the petitioner filed an application (Exh. 94) seeking to produce a pen drive containing YouTube live-streaming footage of the High Court’s proceedings in a related matter.

Upon realizing that such footage is prohibited as evidence under the High Court Rules, she sought to withdraw the application.

The Family Court, Jamnagar, rejected the withdrawal, imposed a cost of ₹20,000 (later reduced to ₹11,000 via Exh. 108), and referred the matter for contempt proceedings.

The petitioner challenged the imposition of costs.

Whether the Family Court was justified in imposing heavy costs and refusing the withdrawal of an application filed under a mistaken understanding of procedural rules.

Whether the conduct of the petitioner warranted punitive financial impositions in the context of ongoing child custody litigation.

The court considered the Gujarat High Court (Live Streaming of Court Proceedings) Rules, 2021, which specifically prohibits the use of live-streamed recordings as evidence in court proceedings.

The court also applied general principles of judicial discretion regarding the imposition of costs, emphasizing that courts should view the "entirety of circumstances" and the psychological state of litigants in matrimonial and custody disputes rather than treating procedural errors as isolated instances of misconduct.

The High Court observed that the petitioner, a mother involved in a bitingly contested custody battle, acted under "wrong advice" and a "lack of awareness" regarding the 2021 Rules.

The court noted that the petitioner attempted to rectify her error immediately by making an endorsement to withdraw the application once she realized the legal prohibition.

The High Court reasoned that child custody battles involve significant emotional trauma and psychological distress, which may lead to such procedural missteps.

Consequently, the High Court found that the Family Court’s decision to impose costs and initiate contempt was overly harsh, as the court should have allowed the withdrawal of the application once the mistake was acknowledged.

The Court held that instead of penalizing the petitioner, the lower court should have permitted the withdrawal of the application given the prompt admission of the mistake.

The direction for the payment of ₹11,000 was quashed.