Lawyers must promote resolution in matrimonial disputes: Delhi High Court

New Delhi: Delhi High Court has stressed that lawyers must advise clients embroiled in matrimonial disputes to resolve the matter instead of "fuelling" allegations against each other.
A bench of justices Prathiba M Singh and Amit Sharma observed that in matrimonial disputes, the litigants experienced emotional trauma, with their personal lives coming to a standstill, and it was conscious of their "frustration and exasperation". The conduct of litigants in such matters could not cross the boundaries prescribed in the law, the bench added.
"Lawyers also have a great responsibility in such matters not only towards their own client but also towards the court and society. Peace and tranquillity are extremely necessary," the court asserted. It further highlighted that allegations in such matters could be taken extremely personally, which could lead to clients misbehaving with opposing counsels, though the same could not be justified in any manner.
The court made the observations while imposing costs of Rs 1 lakh on a husband, to be paid to his estranged wife, for his misbehaviour in a family court, which included hurling profanities at the wife's counsel.
While dealing with a woman's plea for initiating criminal contempt proceedings against the husband and awarding him six-month jail time, the court observed that though several events occurred during the proceedings in the high court and the family courts, he couldn't be squarely blamed. If there were any allegations against the counsel for the wife, the court said, the husband ought to have adopted the proper course of action, and "hurling abuses in court would not be permissible".
In July 2024, the husband allegedly hurled profanities at the counsel in a family court, triggering commotion. It came on record that he demeaned the proceedings by using abusive language not just against the wife's lawyer but even made aspersions against the judge. The matrimonial dispute, the court said, turned into an "ugly spat" between the lawyers for the parties.
Bearing in mind the background of the case, the remorse expressed by the husband and the fact that he had an ailing father, the court admonished the husband and directed him to tender an verbal apology to the wife's counsel.