"No End To Multiplication Of Cases In Family Disputes": Madras High Court Fines Father-In-Law For Filing Writ To Wreak Vengeance
The Madras High Court recently lamented the institution of multiple cases in family disputes and commented that instead of approaching the Family Courts to settle the disputes, parties often expanded the disputes to criminal courts and other jurisdictions and sometimes even the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Pointing out that there is no end to docket multiplication in family disputes, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed as under,
“There is no end to docket multiplication, when it comes to family disputes. From the Family Courts, it is expanded to Criminal Courts and the other jurisdictions and now, slowly, all subjects under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are also being occupied for the dispute…If the issue is not settled, they are supposed to go for trial and if a prayer is made for divorce or restitution of conjugal rights or maintenance, as the case may be, the Court will grant or refuse the relief depending on whether the grounds are made out or not. But, unfortunately, variety of litigations are filed for the family dispute,” the court said.
The court has also imposed costs on a father-in-law for filing a case against daughter-in-law for wreaking vengeance.
The court was dealing with the petition filed by the father-in-law, Balasubramaniyam. Balasubramaniyam had filed the petition seeking direction to the Principal Secretary to the Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, the Dean of Government Stanley Medical College, the Director of Medical Education in Chennai, and the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, to take action against one Dr Monika, for her failure to comply with the bond period.
The petitioner argued that the doctor was a non-service PG candidate who was selected under the state quota for M.S (General Surgery) Post Graduate Degree Course during the PG session 2016-12017 in the Tamil Nadu Government Medical College. It was argued that the doctor had completed her course in April 2019, but had not done the bond service and was thus liable to pay Rs. 40,00,000/-. Since the authorities had not taken any action, the petitioner had approached the court.
The authorities informed the court that action had been initiated against the doctor for her non-compliance of the bond period. However, the authorities also pointed out that the petitioner did not have any locus standi to file the petition.
The lady doctor also appeared before the court and informed that the petitioner was none other than her father-in-law who had filed the plea by suppressing facts. It was submitted that the divorce proceedings between the respondent doctor and the son of the petitioner was pending. She also pointed out that the petitioner had even raised a complaint with the Tamil Nadu Medical Council, which was dismissed.
The court noted that the petitioner had filed the plea by suppressing the fact that he was the respondent doctor's father-in-law. The court also noted that he had not mentioned how he was personally aggrieved in the matter, nor had he filed it in the nature of a public interest litigation.
Thus, noting that the petition was filed only to wreak vengeance, the court imposed a cost of Rs 2000/- on the father-in-law to be paid to the Director of Medical Education.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. P. Krishnan
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. E. Sundaram, GA, Mrs.N.Kavitha Rameswar
Case Title: P Balasubramaniyam v. The Principal Secretary to Government and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 46
Case No: W.P.No.27651 of 2025