‘If She Really Is an Advocate, It’s Alarming’: Kerala High Court Slams Litigant for Misconduct While Dismissing Writ Petition Challenging Ex-Parte Divorce Decree as Not Maintainable
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Kerala, Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha reprimanded a litigant claiming to be an advocate for her conduct while personally arguing a writ petition seeking to invalidate a divorce decree issued by the Family Court, Ernakulam. The Bench considered whether the petition could be numbered, after the Registry flagged defects noting that such a writ petition would not lie when an alternative statutory appeal under Order XVI of the Code of Civil Procedure was available. Upholding the Registry’s view, the Court held the writ petition as non-maintainable, sustained the defects, and permitted the petitioner to pursue an appropriate appeal, while also recording its disapproval of her inappropriate behaviour during the proceedings.
The petitioner, appearing in person and claiming to be an advocate, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging a decree and judgment passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam, which had granted divorce to the respondent under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act on the ground of cruelty. The petitioner sought to assail the decree through a writ of certiorari, contending that the Family Court’s proceedings were “null and void.” She argued that the decree had been rendered ex parte and that she had been declared ex parte illegally. The petitioner asserted that since the respondent had alleged she suffered from psychological issues, the Family Court was obligated to conduct an inquiry under Order XXXII Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure before proceeding.
The petitioner did not move any application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree, maintaining that such remedy was unnecessary because the decree was “non est.” The Registry of the High Court marked several defects in her filing, primarily questioning the maintainability of the writ petition when a statutory appeal under Order XVI CPC was available.
During the proceedings, the petitioner appeared in professional robes, arguing that as an advocate she was entitled to do so even while representing herself. The Court recorded that she initially refused to comply with directions to remove her robes and displayed combative behaviour in court. No additional documentary evidence was presented in support of her contentions. The Bench considered the matter only to determine whether the writ petition was maintainable for numbering. The central statutory references made were to Article 32 of the Constitution of India, and Orders IX, XVI, and XXXII Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Division Bench recorded that “the petitioner, through this writ petition, attempts to assail the judgment and decree of the learned Family Court… through which it granted divorce to the respondent from her.” The Court noted that instead of pursuing the appeal available under law, “she filed this writ petition seeking non-specific reliefs.”
The judges stated that “the primary defect is that such a writ petition will not lie,” adding that the petitioner “refused to cure the defects” and was “combative” in her conduct. It was recorded that she appeared in professional robes, and “when intimated that this is impermissible, she rudely rebuked us, saying that no one can force her to remove her robes.” The Bench observed that, upon the advice of other advocates, she eventually removed her gown but continued to argue contentiously.
The petitioner claimed that the Family Court’s decree was “null and void” as it was issued ex parte and without an inquiry under Order XXXII Rule 15 CPC. She argued that “a writ of certiorari under Article 32 can be sought… since the same have been issued against an insane defendant.” The Court recorded: “It is amazing that the petitioner, who claims to be an Advocate, contends so before this Court.”
The Bench observed that the Family Court had granted divorce “only under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, namely on the ground that the petitioner has treated him with cruelty.” The Court noted that the decree was issued “solely based on the evidence tendered by the respondent, since the petitioner remained ex parte.”
The Division Bench directed that “the defects noticed by the Registry are justified; and are hence sustained.” The Court clarified that “this will not preclude the petitioner from filing a properly constituted appeal as per law.”
“Sensing our opinion, the petitioner began to speak intemperately, imputing us 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.”
“Abhorrent and reprehensible as it surely is, we choose not to take cognizance of the petitioner’s behaviour; but record that we are aghast that an Advocate – if she indeed is one – has stooped so low. We leave it there!”
“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.”
Case Title: XXX v YYY
Neutral Citation: 2025:IO:KER:27
Case Number: W.P.(C) Filing No. 34553 of 2025
Bench: Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha
