The court dismissed the petition under Article 227 as mala fide, emphasizing the need for ethical conduct from lawyers and the importance of judicial independence.

JUDGMENT

Jaspreet Singh, J.

Heard Shri Sameer Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The instant petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

(i) Exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India and conduct an enquiry against opposite parties, considering the fact that the opposite party no.2 has acted negligently and the opposite party no.1 has no administrative control over Family Court Lucknow and the other facts mentioned in the present petition and thereafter, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to take suitable and appropriate action against the opposite parties.

(ii) Issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The petitioner is a practicing Advocate at Family Court, Lucknow and has a standing of 35 years. It is the case of the petitioner, that a matrimonial dispute was pending between Deepshikha Singh and Dr. Pawan Singh wherein the present petitioner was the counsel appearing before the Family Court on behalf of Dr. Pawan Singh. It is also the case of the petitioner that a petition under section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by Smt. Deepshikha Singh which was registered as Case No.235-C of 2012. It is said that the said case was heard and reserved for orders on 05.12.2022. However, the orders were not pronounced. Thereafter, the matter was listed for disposal of the said case, however, on 26.07.2023, the Presiding Officer of Additional Principal Judge-II, Family Court, Lucknow is said to have preferred an application for transfer of the said case from the said Court to some other Court and the said application was moved before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow.

4. It is, at this stage, that the petitioner appeared before the Additional Principal Judge-II, Family Court, Lucknow on 04.10.2023 and gained information that the Miscellaneous Case No.235-C of 2012 was pending and the Court of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-II had showed reluctance to continue with the said case and that the Court had already written to the Principal Judge, Family Court to pass appropriate orders placing the matter before some other court.

5. The petitioner further contends that in the transfer application moved by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-2 Lucknow instead of mentioning the case under section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act bearing number 235-C of 2012, it described the case as one under Section 13 (ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 though the case between the said parties which was under Section Hindu Marriage Act was bearing Case No.1467 of 2012.

6. It has further been stated that the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-II, Lucknow in the application given to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow indicated that the matter is pending for final disposal, whereas the case under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was referred had already been decided on 05.07.2014.

7. This Court deems appropriate to make it clear, at this stage, that the reference made to the case already decided was in context with the petition under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act relating to Case No.1467 of 2012 and it did not relate to the Case No.235-C of 2012 which admittedly was pending on the said date.

8. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that it is stated that the application moved by the Additional Principal Judge-II, Family Court, Lucknow was mischievous and it also did not indicate the correct section or the status which apparently indicates that there has been a complete non-application of judicial mind while moving the said application before the Principal Judge, Family Court. It is in the aforesaid context that certain averments have been made in the petition and the same are being reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:-

"4. That the petitioner is a practicing Advocate at Family Court Lucknow, s