Kerala HC Dismisses Advocate's "Incredulous" Writ Plea, Cites Glaring Procedural Lapses and 'Reprehensible' Conduct

Kochi: The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed by an advocate challenging a Family Court's divorce decree, highlighting fundamental procedural errors and condemning the petitioner's "abhorrent and reprehensible" courtroom behaviour. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha , ruled that a writ petition is not maintainable against a Family Court's final judgment when a statutory appeal is available.

---

Case Background

The case, Elizabeth Mathew vs John Varghese , involved a petitioner, an advocate appearing in person, who sought to challenge an ex parte divorce decree granted to her husband by the Family Court, Ernakulam, on September 20, 2022. Instead of filing a statutory appeal as prescribed by law, or an application to set aside the ex parte decree, she filed a writ petition nearly three years later, on September 16, 2025.

The High Court Registry flagged the petition as defective, primarily on the grounds of maintainability, but the petitioner refused to cure the defects, insisting the matter be heard.

Petitioner's "Incredulous" Arguments

The petitioner argued that the Family Court's decree was "null and void" and therefore could be challenged directly through a writ petition. Her core contentions were:

1. "Null and Void" Decree: She claimed the decree was a nullity because the Family Court had illegally declared her ex parte, thus relieving her of the "obligation" to file a standard appeal.
   
   
2. Failure to Conduct Insanity Inquiry: The petitioner argued that since her husband had alleged psychological issues in his divorce petition, the Family Court was obligated under Order XXXII, Rule 15 of the CPC to conduct an inquiry into her mental state, even in her absence. She contended that the failure to do so against an "insane defendant" (referring to herself) rendered the judgment "non est" in law.
3. Writ of Certiorari under Article 32: She insisted that the petition was maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the High Court to quash the "null and void" decree.

Paradoxically, while demanding the court treat the decree as one passed against an "insane defendant," she asserted before the High Court that she had no mental incapacity to prosecute the writ petition herself. The court noted she was "clearly blowing hot and cold, in a rather confused tenor."

Court's Rebuke and Procedural Clarifications

The High Court was, in its own words, "totally taken aback" by the petitioner's submissions, which demonstrated a disregard for basic legal principles. The bench systematically dismantled her arguments:

• Statutory Remedy: The court affirmed that the petitioner's proper legal recourse was to either file an application to set aside the ex parte decree under Order IX, Rule 13 of the CPC or file a statutory appeal. A writ petition cannot be used to bypass these established legal remedies.
  
  
• Article 32 Jurisdiction: The court expressed its astonishment that the petitioner, claiming to be an advocate, was unaware that a petition under Article 32 (for enforcement of fundamental rights) lies before the Supreme Court, not a High Court.
  
  
• Unexplained Delay: The petition was filed after a three-year delay, which the petitioner failed to explain, erroneously claiming that a "null and void" decree can be challenged at any time via writ jurisdiction.

Pivotal Judicial Excerpt

"It is amazing that the petitioner, who claims to be an Advocate, contends so before this Court... The defects noticed by the Registry are justified; and are hence sustained. However, this will not preclude the petitioner from filing a properly constituted appeal as per law."

Deplorable Courtroom Conduct

The judgment reserved its strongest condemnation for the petitioner's courtroom conduct. She initially appeared in full advocate's robes to argue her own case, which is impermissible. When corrected by the Bench, she "rudely rebuked" the judges and "insinuated that the Bench is refusing to hear her wearing her gown with ‘evil thoughts’."

After senior advocates intervened, she removed her gown but continued to act intemperately, raising her voice and later "imputing us of not knowing the law and being 'undeserving' judges." The court recorded, with shock, an "obnoxious and perverse statement" she made, which it refrained from reproducing to maintain civility.

Final Decision and Epilogue

The High Court upheld the Registry's objections and refused to number the writ petition, effectively dismissing it as non-maintainable.

In an alarming epilogue, the court questioned the petitioner's status as an advocate, given her ignorance of "the most basic and rudimentary concepts" and "deliberately unrestrained and unbridled deportment." The Bench referred the matter to the Bar Council and the relevant Bar Association to examine her conduct, warning that the profession could "lose its nobility by the actions of a deviant few."