In a significant directive aimed at preserving the sanctity of marriages, the Madras High Court has urged the Bar Council of India (BCI) to frame ethical guidelines for advocates handling matrimonial disputes, stressing that lawyers should “not add fuel to fire.” The Court observed that lawyers must strive to help resolve marital issues rather than exacerbate them, emphasizing their role as facilitators of peace in family matters.
A division bench of Justices Bhavani Subbaroyan and KK Ramakrishnan issued this call after reviewing a marital case where, as the Court noted, a lawyer’s choice of language had deepened the estrangement between the spouses. Expressing displeasure over the lawyer’s conduct, the judges pointed out that an advocate’s duty in such cases should be to foster conciliation.
“The duty of the advocate in these types of matters is not to blow the incident out of proportion and thereby cause turbulence to the matrimonial life,” the Court stated. “The advocate should try to make the marriage, not break it. The advocate should be a builder, not a destroyer. The advocate should not play spoil sport.”
The bench laid out several specific recommendations, encouraging advocates to:
- Follow ethical standards and avoid misguiding clients.
- Refrain from giving unprofessional advice that could unnecessarily implicate third parties.
- Encourage clients toward amicable settlements, recognizing the impact on both parties and their families.
- Seek assistance from qualified counselors to provide appropriate guidance.
- Disallow clients from involving unrelated individuals in complaints, and remind them of the consequences of filing false complaints.
The Court highlighted that advocates should inform clients of potential legal repercussions if they give false complaints against unconnected individuals and urged them to discourage clients from escalating issues through police complaints. In cases where clients insist on filing dubious allegations, the Court suggested that lawyers “play a proactive role” by advising them to reconsider their position.
The case involved a woman challenging a family court’s decision to grant her husband a divorce and dismiss her petition for restitution of conjugal rights. According to the husband, his wife’s alleged pressure on his father for a property partition and her frequent threats of suicide created significant marital strain. The situation escalated with allegations that the wife’s relatives assaulted his family, leading to his father’s death. The High Court noted that, given the circumstances, it would be unreasonable to expect the husband to reconcile.
“When there is an allegation of the intentional murder of the husband’s father under his nose, and he and his mother sustained grievous injuries, it would be an inhuman approach to ask him to forget the past as a bad dream,” the Court said.
In dismissing the wife’s appeal, the Court reaffirmed the importance of professional ethics and accountability among advocates, warning that any unprofessional conduct could result in disciplinary action by the Bar Council.
Advocate TK Gopalan represented the appellant, while Advocate J Bharathan appeared for the respondent.
