The Delhi High Court has formally transferred a petition involving a sensitive domestic dispute to another bench following an incident of professional misconduct by an advocate appearing for the daughter-in-law of a 91-year-old petitioner. The case, which originated from a challenge to an order passed by a Judicial Magistrate First Class in the Rohini Courts, took an unexpected turn when counsel for the respondent, R.K. Tarun, repeatedly disrupted the proceedings before abandoning the courtroom while the court was still in session. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, presiding over the matter, characterized the advocate's actions as “clearly reckless, reprehensible and amount to misconduct” after he repeatedly remarked, “I cry my beloved justice system,” while waving his hands and exiting the room.

The underlying legal dispute concerns a property located in Pitampura, owned by the petitioner, Arjun Dev Bhatia. Mr. Bhatia, a 91-year-old senior citizen, approached the High Court to contest an order dated October 23, 2026, which granted his daughter-in-law access to his private residence as an alternate accommodation under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The petitioner contended that he is the absolute owner of the property and that his son and daughter-in-law had established independent residences since 2010. According to the petitioner's submissions, the couple had been residing in a separate rented apartment in the same locality since 2013, a lease arrangement that had recently faced an eviction decree following the cessation of rent payments.

Escalating Disputes Over Residential Possession

During the hearing, the court sought a pragmatic resolution to the housing dilemma, inquiring whether the petitioner was prepared to provide financial support to cover the monthly rent of ₹27,500, or facilitate alternate housing of an equivalent standard for his daughter-in-law. Mr. Bhatia expressed his willingness to pay the monthly rent and committed to depositing an advance amount equivalent to six months’ rent within 24 hours. The counsel for the daughter-in-law initially informed the court that his client had already vacated the rental unit and returned the keys to the landlord, a statement that was sharply disputed by legal representatives for the petitioner's son.

The procedural confusion deepened when the daughter-in-law’s counsel altered his stance, subsequently clarifying that the keys remained in his client's possession and that she was unwilling to return to a rental property. The court observed that the shifting narratives regarding the possession of the flat hindered the judicial process. Justice Arora remarked on the record, “It is extremely unfortunate that the stand on handover of keys to the landlord is being changed repeatedly by respondent no. 2, when the Court has specifically enquired about the status of handover of the possession of the flat to the landlord.” To ensure the verification of these claims and protect the interests of all parties, the court directed the landlord, Manjit Singh Sahni, to maintain the status quo regarding the flat’s possession and ordered him to appear in court on November 5, 2026.

Court Response to Disruptive Courtroom Decorum

The court’s decision to transfer the matter was prompted by the conduct of the advocate representing the daughter-in-law. Following the court's dictation of directions concerning the rent payments and the status quo on the flat’s possession, the advocate displayed significant frustration. The court recorded that the counsel loudly made his remark about the justice system four times, gestured dismissively, and began walking out of the hearing. Although the judge paused the proceedings to summon the advocate back to the courtroom, the subsequent apology offered was deemed insufficient.

In the formal order, the court expressed its disapproval, noting that the advocate’s conduct suggested an alignment with his client’s interests that superseded his duties as an officer of the court. Justice Arora observed, “It is extremely unfortunate that a counsel, who ought to have the highest regard for the process of law, is expressing loss of faith in the judicial system, creating a nuisance of himself, because the order passed does not suit him or his client.” Furthermore, the court expressed apprehension that such conduct might lead to external interference in the judicial process, potentially instigating frivolous allegations against the judiciary. By transferring the matter to another bench, the court aimed to preserve the integrity and dignity of the judicial system while ensuring that the core dispute could be resolved impartially.

Procedural Status and Interim Directions

Despite the transfer of the case to another bench, the court maintained the validity of its interim directives to preserve the status of the ongoing dispute. The petitioner has been tasked with depositing six months’ rent with the High Court, and the petitioner's son is mandated to deposit any outstanding rental arrears within two days. These financial measures are intended to address the immediate needs of the respondent while the court determines the final resolution of the challenge against the magistrate’s order.

The matter is now subject to the instructions of the Judge-in-Charge on the Criminal Side. The Court directed that the proceedings resume on November 5, 2026, at 10:30 A.M. This date will serve as the next point of determination for the legal dispute, with the presence of the landlord required to clarify the status of the rental property. The High Court’s intervention underscores the priority placed on maintaining professional decorum in legal proceedings, even when dealing with high-stress domestic disputes that require delicate judicial balancing of familial property rights and individual welfare obligations under statutory protections. The case remains a significant instance of a court asserting its authority to ensure that legal representation does not compromise the impartiality or the orderly conduct of the administration of justice.