Singh, Amicus Curiae v. Ranjit Singh Advocate

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present contempt petition arises out of a matrimonial dispute, namely HMA No.849/2021 titled ‘Anand v. Soni’. The Contemnor/Respondent herein was appearing as an advocate for the husband. The reference arises out of the order dated 24th August, 2024 where the ld. Judge, Family Court, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, recorded as under: “Ld. Counsel for petitioner is making allegation to the court that court is being lenient to the wife/respondent as court is not able to see that respondent is recalibrating the justice and court has not taken care of the petitioner and court has not been taking action against the respondent for not filing WS till date. He submitted that court is not sitting here to extort the petitioner without taking care of the grievance of the petitioner. He further submitted that petitioner has already deposited litigation charges vide DD and it was respondent who did not collect the DD, therefore, it was not fault of petitioner but despite that he is being penalized. He submitted that respondent’s right to file WS be closed and proceedings should continue. He further submitted that court is siding with the respondent and not listening to his grievances and he is putting question to himself why this court is excessively favouring the respondent. He submitted that for rest of the allegations against the court, he would like to look for his dictionary to choose words and will make the allegations on the next date of hearing. He further submitted that if right of the respondent to file WS is not forfeited, then his grievance will remain operational. Ld. LAC for respondent objecting to the language of the counsel for petitioner used against the court has submitted that petitioner after institution of the present petition repeatedly came to the house of the respondent, made physical relations and made her pregnant and thereafter, miscarriage took place. She further submitted that he entered into settlement which was reduced into writing thrice including one before Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, PHC, New Delhi on 16.02.2024 and copy thereof is placed on record and, therefore, in these circumstances, she submitted that all the allegations that counsel for petitioner has levelled against the court as to why court has not insisted upon the filing of WS are baseless. Ld. LAC for respondent further submitted that even otherwise petitioner came yesterday also to the house of the respondent. Ld. Counsel for petitioner submitted that whatever has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for respondent is blatant lie. Even after warning to the counsel for petitioner, counsel for petitioner has stuck to his submission. From the submission noted above, it is clear that counsel for petitioner does not appear to be in senses. It is a matter of record that none of the interim orders passed on daily bases was challenged by the petitioner before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. If petitioner was aggrieved by the repeated extension of time for filing of WS, petitioner had the remedy to approach the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for setting things right. On the one hand he had not chosen to challenge any of the daily orders passed in the present petition and thereby accepting those orders and later on has chosen to accuse this court that too using unparliamentary words.”

3. The ld. Judge, has recorded that the conduct of the Contemnor, in making an allegation of extortion by the Court in favour of the wife, is completely distasteful. In furtherance to this, allegations of bias were made without any basis. According to the Presiding Officer, said allegations were fully unwarranted and scandalous and thus the contempt reference was made.

4. Notice was issued in this matter on 7th October, 2024. Today, the Contemnor is present along with his Counsel. It is submitted by Mr. Rajiv Gaur, ld. Counsel for the Contemnor that the reference appears to have been based out of misunderstanding. The grievance, on which the contempt reference was made, is that in the main divorce petition the written statement was not filed by the wife even after substantial time being given by the Court. However, a subsequent maintenance application filed by the wife was given precedence and the written statement was not even directed to be filed by the Family Court. It is further submitted that till date the written statement has not been filed and under such circumstances the counsel had argued that the wife’s intention is merely to extort money and no allegation was made against the ld. Presiding Officer.

5. The Contemnor who is present in Court, submits that he is a practising lawyer since the year 2009 and is enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi. He submits that he does not have any intention to make scandalous allegations against ld. Presiding Officer as he is a regular practitioner in the Trial Courts. Further, it is submitted that there may have been misunderstanding and in any event he tenders an unconditional apology for having offended the ld. Presiding Officer, Family Court.

6. The Court has seen the reference order dated 24th August, 2024. Clearly, it appears that the ld. Counsel ought to have been careful while making submissions before the Court. Use of impermissible language would constitute over reaching of the Court and tends to lower the dignity of the Court in the eyes of the public. If any submission is to be made, the same ought to be a in respectful manner. Needless to add, such circumstances ought to be dealt in a congenial manner and such use of language also ought to be avoided, especially by Advocates who have a role in maintaining the decorum and dignity of the Court.

7. Considering that the Contemnor is an advocate, who has expressed regret and has not sought to justify his conduct, the Court accepts apology tendered by the Contemnor. However, the Contemnor is cautioned to ensure that such behaviour is not repeated in future.

8. Accordingly, the Contempt reference is disposed of in the above terms.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE AMIT SHARMA JUDGE DECEMBER 05, 2024/dk/ks