The Delhi High Court has transferred a domestic violence-related accommodation dispute to another Bench after a lawyer repeatedly expressed his loss of faith in the judicial system and attempted to leave the courtroom while the judge was dictating an order. The Court described his conduct as reckless, reprehensible and amounting to misconduct.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, in an order dated November 3, also refused to accept the advocate’s apology, finding that it lacked sincerity and appeared to be mere lip service.
The incident occurred during proceedings concerning a 91-year-old man’s challenge to a trial court direction allowing his daughter-in-law to occupy his residential property as alternative accommodation.
Court Takes Exception to Advocate’s Conduct
According to the order, the advocate representing the daughter-in-law interrupted the dictation of judicial directions by repeatedly saying, “I cry my beloved justice system.”
The lawyer repeated the statement four times, waved his hands in the air and began leaving the courtroom even though the proceedings had not concluded.
Justice Arora stopped the proceedings and called the advocate back, expressing surprise at his behaviour.
The Court observed that a legal professional was expected to respect judicial proceedings rather than question the credibility of the justice system merely because an order did not favour his client.
It further expressed concern that the advocate appeared to have identified himself so closely with his client’s interests that he was unwilling to accept an unfavourable judicial direction.
The judge also apprehended that the lawyer might attempt to justify the order to his client by encouraging baseless allegations against the judge or the judicial system.
Finding the conduct unacceptable, the Court decided to have the matter placed before another Bench to safeguard the dignity of the institution. However, it clarified that the directions already issued to the petitioner would remain operative.
Dispute Over Accommodation for Daughter-in-Law
The proceedings arose from a petition filed by Arjun Dev Bhatia, aged 91, who challenged an October 23 trial court order permitting his daughter-in-law to enter his house in Pitampura, Delhi, as alternative accommodation in a domestic violence case.
Bhatia, the property’s absolute owner, resides in the house. The trial court had granted accommodation-related relief after his daughter-in-law faced eviction from a rented flat where she had been living with her husband and two children.
During the High Court hearing, the question arose whether the petitioner could arrange alternative accommodation instead of allowing his daughter-in-law to occupy his property.
Bhatia’s counsel informed the Court that he was prepared to pay Rs 27,500 per month towards the rent of the existing flat and deposit an additional amount covering six months’ rent in advance.
However, counsel representing the daughter-in-law maintained that she had already surrendered possession of the rented premises and returned the keys to its landlord. She was therefore unwilling to resume living there, even if the petitioner agreed to meet the rental expenses.
The woman’s husband, through his counsel, disputed the claim that possession had already been handed over.
High Court Orders Deposits, Seeks Verification of Possession
To ascertain the actual position regarding the rented flat, Justice Arora directed Bhatia to deposit six months’ rent with the Court.
The woman’s husband was separately directed to deposit any outstanding rent payable to the landlord within two days.
The Court also issued notice to the landlord and ordered maintenance of the status quo concerning possession of the premises until the conflicting claims could be verified.
Justice Arora expressed concern over the daughter-in-law’s repeatedly changing position regarding the alleged handover of keys to the landlord.
It was during the dictation of these directions that her advocate disrupted the proceedings, prompting the Court to record his conduct and order the transfer of the matter to another Bench.
