In a writ petition filed before the Kerala High Court to assail the judgment and decree dated 20-09-2022 passed by the Family Court, Ernakulum whereby divorce was granted to the respondent, a Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha was left aghast by the unrestrained behaviour of the petitioner, who appeared as a party in person for the matter and asked the Bar Council and Bar Association concerned to examine how she could be allowed to practice law.
The Court noted that the writ petition sought non-specific reliefs and that the Registry had marked several defects which the petitioner had refused to correct. It was stated that the petitioner, appearing in person, claimed to be an advocate and appeared in professional robes. Upon being told that this was impermissible, she rudely replied to the Court that no one could force her to remove her robes.
The Court exercised restraint and kept the matter passed over for some time so that the baffling situation being created by the petitioner could be diffused. After a few other members of the Bar intervened, the petitioner removed her robe but retained her band.
The petitioner contended that since the impugned judgment was ‘null and void’, she was not obliged to file an appeal because the same was passed after illegally declaring her ex parte. Further, the petitioner contended that since the husband had alleged in the original petition that she was suffering from psychological issues, the Family Court should have ensured the presence of her family members before conducting an inquiry against her under Order XXXII, Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), even though she did not appear.
The Court stated that there was no way to reason with the petitioner as she refused to listen and raised her voice, demanding that the Court order the petition to be numbered and, thereafter, be allowed.
The Court noted that no court can be asked to conduct an inquiry when the party refuses or fails to appear, and that the petitioner was behaving in a confused manner. Further, the Court said that even though the present petition was filed after three years, the delay had not been explained in the pleadings.
The Court stated that the defects noticed by the Registry were justified and were thus sustained. The petitioner then began alleging that the judges did not know the law and were ‘undeserving’. It was further noted that the petitioner made an obnoxious statement that the Bench refused to hear her with her robes because it wanted her body to be exposed.
The Court chose not to take cognizance of the petitioner’s behaviour but asked for it to be recorded that it was aghast that an advocate had stooped so low. The Court found it alarming for the profession that the petitioner, being an advocate, was unaware of the fact that an advocate cannot appear as a party in person in professional robes or that Article 32 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked before a High Court.
Lastly, the Court stated that it was for the Bar Council and the Bar Association concerned to examine how the petitioner could be allowed to enjoy the privilege to practice law, considering that she was in absolute breach of the decorum, propriety, and decency that is imperative in a court.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Ms. Elizabeth Mathew (Party-in-person)
For Respondent – None
