A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, while dismissing an un-numbered writ petition as not maintainable, recorded its “shock” at the “abhorrent and reprehensible” conduct of the petitioner, who claimed to be an advocate. The Bench, comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and M.B. Snehalatha, referred the matter to the Bar Council for examination.
The court sustained the Registry’s objection to numbering a writ petition filed by a woman challenging a three-year-old ex parte divorce decree, holding that the petition was not maintainable when a statutory remedy of appeal is available.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, appearing as a party-in-person, filed the writ petition to “assail the judgment and decree” of the Family Court, Ernakulam, dated 20.09.2022. The Family Court, in an Original Petition, had granted a divorce to the respondent (her husband) on the grounds of cruelty. The judgment noted that the decree was issued ex parte as the petitioner had remained absent.
Instead of filing a “statutory appeal” as provided under the law, the petitioner filed the writ petition nearly three years later, on 16.09.2025. The delay was “not explained in the pleadings.” The High Court Registry marked several defects, the “primary of them is that such a Writ Petition will not lie.” The petitioner refused to cure the defects, leading to the matter being listed before the Bench to decide its maintainability.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that the ex parte judgment and decree were “null and void.” She argued that because the decree was void, she was not “obliged” to file a statutory appeal and that a writ of certiorari under Article 32 of the Constitution of India would lie.
The petitioner’s central argument, which the High Court termed “incredible,” was based on an allegation made by her husband in the original divorce petition that she was “suffering from psychological issues.” The petitioner argued that the Family Court “ought to have ensured the presence of her family members” and conducted an inquiry under Order XXXII, Rule 15 of the C.P.C., even though she had failed to appear.
She argued that this omission rendered the decree “non est” in law, as it was issued against an “insane defendant” (sic). While making these submissions, the petitioner also asserted before the High Court that she “has no mental incapacity to defend herself or prosecute the Writ Petition.”
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Division Bench rejected the petitioner’s legal contentions. The court found her primary argument contradictory, noting she “is clearly blowing hot and cold, in a rather confused tenor.” The judgment elaborated: “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.”
Addressing the invocation of Article 32, the court observed: “It is amazing that the petitioner, who claims to be an Advocate, contends so before this Court.”
The court also recorded the petitioner’s conduct during the hearing. It noted she initially appeared in “full professional robes” and “rudely rebuked” the Bench when informed this was “impermissible” for a party-in-person. As the Bench indicated its opinion, the judgment records that the petitioner “began to speak intemperately, imputing us of not knowing the law and being ‘undeserving’ judges.”
The court stated she made an “obnoxious and perverse statement,” the exact words of which were not reproduced as it “will surely breach all norms of civility.” The Bench remarked, “we were shocked and petrified, to say the least,” and recorded, “we are aghast that an Advocate… if she indeed is one has stooped so low.”
Decision of the Court
The High Court upheld the Registry’s objections, stating, “Suffice to say, the defects noticed by the Registry are justified; and are hence sustained.” The Bench clarified that the dismissal “will not preclude the petitioner from filing a properly constituted appeal as per law.”
In an epilogue, the court expressed it found it “alarming for the profession” that the petitioner, “assuming… is an Advocate,” appeared “oblivious of the most basic and rudimentary concepts” such as an “Advocate cannot appear as a party in person in professional robes; or that Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be invoked before a High Court.”
Citing her “deliberately unrestrained and unbridled deportment, in total and absolute breach of decorum,” the court referred the matter to the “Bar Council and the Bar Association concerned to examine” her privilege to practice law.
