Locus to file writ petition on behalf of spouse denied; Section 120 Evidence Act does not permit institution of proceedings.

A husband had no locus to maintain a writ petition or writ appeal on behalf of his wife in a private dispute arising from pending civil suits, especially when the wife and the third party were not impleaded. Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 only makes a spouse competent to testify in civil and criminal proceedings; it does not authorise one spouse to institute proceedings as the litigating party for the other. The proper course was for the wife herself to sue after impleading necessary parties, so the dismissal of the writ petition was upheld, though the costs imposed by the single judge were expunged.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant could maintain the writ petition and writ appeal on behalf of his wife without impleading the necessary parties, and whether reliance on Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 could justify such filing.

Analysis: The writ petition was filed by the appellant espousing the cause of his wife in a private dispute arising out of pending civil suits. The wife and the third party against whom relief was sought were not before the Court. Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 only makes a spouse competent to depose as a witness in civil proceedings or criminal proceedings, and does not confer a right on a husband to institute proceedings as if he were the litigating party. The proper course was for the wife herself to institute proceedings after impleading the necessary parties. The appellate Court agreed with the dismissal of the writ petition, while expunging the cost imposed by the single Judge.

Conclusion: The appellant had no locus to maintain the writ petition on behalf of his wife, and Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 did not support such institution of proceedings. The writ appeal was dismissed, with costs expunged.

---