Advocates Should Try To Resolve Matrimonial Disputes 'Without Adding Fuel To Fire': Madras High Court Suggests BCI To Form Guidelines

The bench of Justice Bhavani Subbaroyan and Justice KK Ramakrishnan remarked that lawyers had an enormous social responsibility to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. The court added that legal professionals should ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents are not reflected in criminal complaints and must maintain the noble traditions of the profession.

“The duty of the advocate in these type of the matters is not to blow the incident out of proportion and thereby cause turbulence to the matrimonial life. The legal profession is for resolving the controversies between parties in the case of matrimonial dispute. The advocate should try to make the marriage and not to break it. The advocate should be a builder, not a destroyer. The advocate should not play spoil sport,” the court said.

The court thus suggested that advocates should follow ethical standards when parties solicit their advice and never misguide the parties. The court added that advocates should not give unprofessional advice to implicate persons who are not even remotely connected to the alleged occurrences. The advocates were also asked to advise the clients to not rope in unconnected persons and inform the clients about the legal consequences of giving false complaint against unconnected persons. The court suggested that in cases involving two individuals, especially a family, the advocates should try to advise for an amicable settlement as far as possible.

The court further suggested advocates to seek the help of a qualified counsellor to give proper advice to the party. Further, the court said that advocates should play a neutral role and try their best to resolve the issue between families. Further, if the party was hell bent on giving a false complaint, the advocate could play a proactive role and send away the client asking them to rethink. The court also pointed out that whenever an advocate was seen doing anything unprofessional and unethical while drafting a complaint or filing cases, action could be taken by the Bar Council.

The suggestions were made by the bench in a matrimonial case after noticing that the case was blown out of proportion due to the drafting of the Advocate which was not just beyond the professional ethics but also against the legitimately expected professional conduct from the advocate community.

The court was hearing civil miscellaneous appeals filed by a wife against the order of the Madurai Family Court allowing the husband's petition for divorce and rejecting the wife's petition for restitution of conjugal rights. The couple got married in 2009. The husband argued that after the marriage, the wife kept on insisting his father to partition the property and even threatened the husband with suicide. The husband thus claimed that there was no possibility of reunion and sought divorce. The wife denied these allegations and sought for restitution of conjugal rights.

The court noted that after filing of the divorce petition, the wife had also filed a police complaint, making allegations against the husband and his family. Meanwhile, while the divorce petitions were pending before the Family Court, the wife's relatives had attacked the husband's family leading to his father's death and injuries on himself and his mother. The Family court, considering all these aspects, had granted divorce.

During the appeal, the wife claimed that the Family Court should not have passed the orders considering subsequent events and that it was impermissible in law. She also contended that no allegations were made regarding the involvement of the wife in the father in law's murder and thus the trial court had erroneously considered these materials.

The court however noted that the Family court had not erred in considering the subsequent events. The court noted that when the murder of the husband's father had taken place, in which the husband and his mother were also injured, it was the husband's right to demonstrate the unfortunate circumstances which do not pave way for any reunion. The court added that it was necessary to consider the subsequent events to appreciate the feasibility of a happy matrimonial life.

The court highlighted that matrimonial peace was the pillar of matrimonial life and when this pillar had broken down, the husband could not be asked to live with the wife. The court added that when there were allegations of husband's father being murdered by the wife's family, it was inhuman to ask the husband to forget his past as a bad dream and to live with the wife and keep a conducive matrimonial home.

Thus, concluding that there was an omission on the part of the wife to maintain matrimonial peace and total failure to make Bonafide offer to reunite the broken matrimonial home, the court, finding no merits, was inclined to dismiss the appeals.

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.T.K.Gopalan

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.J.Bharathan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 444

Case Title: ABC v XYZ

Case No: C.M.A(MD)Nos.65 & 66 of 2024