'If She Really Is An Advocate, It's Alarming': Kerala High Court Slams Woman For Misconduct, Casting Aspersions On Judges

The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M B Snehalatha was hearing the petitioner's plea seeking to invalidate a divorce decree and judgment of Family Court Ernakulam.

The matter was being heard to consider whether the writ petition needed to be numbered as the Registry has marked several defects in the case, primarily that such writ petition does not lie as the writ jurisdiction was invoked without considering the statutory appeal under Order XVI CPC.

The Bench noted that the petitioner raised her voice and refused to listen. It noted that the petitioner began to speak "intemperately", imputing the judges of not knowing the law and being “undeserving” judges.

“She even made an obnoxious and perverse statement that the Bench is refusing to hear her wearing her robes, because it wants her body to be exposed. We are not reproducing her exact words, since it will surely breach all norms of civility; but we were shocked and petrified, to say the least,” the order notes.

While declining to take contempt action, the judges recorded their shock and petrification at her conduct and said:

“We are aghast that an Advocate—if she indeed is one—has stooped so low. We leave it there!” the Bench remarked

The petitioner who appeared in person, initially appeared in full advocate's robes insisting she is entitled to wear her gown and argue for herself. When the bench directed her to remove her gown as an advocate cannot appear in professional attire while representing oneself, she refused to comply and accused the judges of having “evil thoughts”.

"We did not respond to this, exercising restraint and kept the matter passed over for ten minutes, to diffuse the baffling situation that the petitioner was attempting to create," the bench noted in its order. 

The order notes that at this time, a few right-thinking Advocates at the Bar intervened and acceding to their advice, the petitioner removed her Advocate's gown - though retaining her band.

The petitioner claimed that she is not “obliged” to file an appeal against the family court's judgment and decree because it has been issued after declaring her ex parte illegally and hence it is required to be construed as “null and void”.

She argued that the Family Court should have conducted an inquiry into her mental health under Order XXXII Rule 15 CPC before passing an ex-parte decree as her husband has alleged in the original petition that she is "suffering from psychological issues".

The High Court said:

"As will be the case of any reasonable mind, we were totally taken aback by the above submissions of the petitioner. But, there was no way for us to reason with the petitioner, because she refused to listen, raising her voice and demanding that we order the Writ Petition to be numbered and then allow it forthwith". 

The bench observed that the petitioner's submissions were self-contradictory, as on one hand she asserted that she was mentally sound and on the other claimed that the decree was invalid because she was allegedly “insane” at the time.

“In its crux, and amazingly, the petitioner alleges that the judgment and decree of the learned Family Court is incompetent since it has been issued against “an insane defendant” (referring to herself), without an enquiry. Apart from the fact that no Court can be asked to conduct an enquiry when the party refuses or fails to appear, it is also undoubted that if one is to accept this contention, then the petitioner cannot maintain this Writ Petition either, for the very same reason. But, before this Court, she says she is without any cognitive incapacity and does not seek any enquiry. She is clearly blowing hot and cold, in a rather confused tenor.” the bench noted.

Taking note of her conduct, the court said that the matter should be examined by the Bar Council and the concerned Bar Association.

“Assuming the petitioner is an Advocate — as she claims — we find it alarming for the profession that she appears oblivious of the most basic and rudimentary concepts that an Advocate cannot appear party in person in professional robes; or that Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be invoked before a High Court. Add to this, her deliberately unrestrained and unbridled deportment, in total and absolute breach of decorum, propriety and decency, imperative in a Court, makes us suspect strongly if she is an Advocate; and if she really is, how she can be allowed to enjoy the privilege to practice law. This is for the Bar Council and the Bar Association concerned to examine, lest the profession lose its nobility by the actions of a deviant few,” the bench concluded.

The High Court dismissed her writ petition as not maintainable, sustaining the Registry's objections but leaving her free to file a proper appeal.

Case Title: XXX v YYY

Case No: XXX

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 681