Allahabad High Court Deprecates Lawyer Son Appearing For Father In Matrimonial Case Against Mother, Says Should Avoid Representing Blood Relatives

While dealing with a criminal contempt initiated at the behest of a Family Court, the Allahabad High Court observed that lawyers though free to choose their clients should avoid taking up cases of blood relatives as it may make them emotionally involved in the case.The bench comprising Justices Saumitra Dayal Singh and Rajendra Kumar-IV was dealing with the contempt notices issued to son-lawyer and father-litigant for disrupting proceedings in the Court of the then Additional Principal Judge Family Court No. 1, Aligarh. The Court observed,“What more catastrophic or precipitative ingredient could have existed than a son (lawyer) appearing for his father (litigant) that too in a matrimonial case with his (lawyer's) mother! It cannot be for Courts to advise lawyers to choose their clients. It has always been left to the wisdom of the learned members of the bar. The basic learning that any member of the bar imbibes at the initial years of practice tell him to not appear for his blood relatives.”Since the apology rendered by the contemnors was not genuine, the Court not wanting to keep the contempt pending and wasting the time of genuine litigants the Court closed the contempt proceedings.Factual BackgroundA reference was made by the then Additional Principal Judge Family Court No. 1, Aligarh on a written complaint to initiate contempt proceedings against litigant Subhash Kumar and his lawyer Shubham Kumar, who are father and son. It was alleged that Mr. Subhash Kumar had misbehaved with the Additional Principal Judge Family Court No. 1, Aligarh while he was hearing another case not related to Subhash Kumar. Since, Mr. Subhash Kumar continued to behave in unruly manner despite warning, criminal contempt proceedings were drawn against him.Mr. Shubham Kumar caused disruption in the court proceedings in the afternoon session. He threatened the Court of seeking transfer of the case filed by his father. Defending his father and continuing to disrupt the Court proceedings, Mr. Shubham Kumar is alleged to have shouted that “he is a practitioner of the Allahabad High Court and that he knows how to deal with petty courts.” He threatened to lodge a complaint against the Presiding Officer.Proceedings before High CourtDuring the proceedings before the High Court, when asked what the contemnors were seeking forgiveness for, they replied: "जो हमने करा नह” (Translation: What we didn't do). However, Mr. Subhash Kumar stated that his son be let go as he is a young advocate.The Court observed that though both contemnors tried to convince the Court that they have utmost regard for the institution and its procedures and that they consciously did not commit any act as may amount to contempt, it was evident from the applications made by Shubham Kumar and the facts recorded on the order sheet by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court regarding the acts committed by the contemnors. The Court observed that Mr. Shubham Kumar continued to interject the proceedings of the Court as his case was not called out in the post lunch session.The Court observed that Court proceedings being formal proceedings must be allowed to be conducted in a dignified manner without undue disruptions. Further, the Court observed that any grievances of litigants or lawyers can be addressed by filing appropriate application or appeal before the appropriate forum and mentioning it at an appropriate time.While noting that at early stages of career, lawyers must imbibe the learning that one should ideally not appear for his blood realtives, the Court observed that “this wisdom and nuance has not touched Subham Kumar by a mile.” By taking up his father's case against his mother, he had become a party to the dispute itself, the Court noted.“It indeed would be sad if statutory law were to provide for restrains on whose brief to take and whose not. Yet, the father - son duo before us would appear to take no less. Thats the tragic part of this case.”The Court observed that Court's time was precious and was not to be wasted on deviant litigants and lawyers. Further, it was observed that it is not for the Court to extract apology from any litigant or his lawyer or to force them to tender such an apology.“Courts exist and will continue to exist to deliver justice to those in need despite such indiscretions committed by persons such as the contemnors. We do not have time to take our gaze away from the cause of justice and to devote the same to punish the contemnors as per the rules of law. Our time would be better utilized and is needed to address the cry for justice by genuine litigants. It does not merit to be wasted on the jesters and/or deviant lawyer and litigant that these contemnors are. They are far too less deserving of that.”The Court observed that in the present case, where the lawyer and litigant both claim to have utmost respect for the institution, but act otherwise, “enough time has been wasted over those who are already wasted.” Not wanting to...

Allahabad High Court Deprecates Lawyer Son Appearing For Father In Matrimonial Case Against Mother, Says Should Avoid Representing Blood Relatives

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags