Don't drag lower court as party: HC
If the plea is accepted, it would open the flood-gate for unnecessary proceedings, Justice S Vaidyanathan said.
CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has refused to implead the I Additional District Judge in Tiruvallur as a party-respondent in a matrimonial case.
If the plea of the petitioner is accepted then it would certainly affect the independence of the judiciary, as a judge should be free to make independent decisions and open the flood-gate for unnecessary proceedings, Justice S Vaidyanathan of the Madras High Court has said.
The judge was dismissing a civil miscellaneous second appeal from Pu Venkatesan of Mogappair West on Friday (Dec. 20). According to the appellant, he was married to a woman in July 1991. But they got separated due to difference of opinion in 2002. While so, the husband moved the Subordinate Judge in Tiruvallur to restore his conjugal rights in 2014. The wife also filed a petition seeking divorce on the ground that the man was impotent. And the Subordinate judge on January 22, 2018 granted the decree of divorce. He preferred the first appeal before the I Additional District Judge in Tiruvallur, who confirmed the lower court order on June 27 this year.
Aggrieved, he preferred the present second appeal, in which he wanted to include the District Judge also as a party-respondent in the case. He submitted that the District Judge had deliberately violated the
norms and provisions in the administration of justice and therefore, the judgment rendered by her did not fall under the category of 'error in the judgment'. The judge, by way of her judgment, had closed all the doors of reunion with his wife, thereby spoiled his reputation and dignity in the society and he was also forced to face mental torture and agony by filing yet another appeal before this Court. He also submitted that he was entitled to get compensation from the judge.
However, Justice Vaidyanathan rejected the contentions. Admittedly, the order passed by the District Judge, Tiruvallur, was not in favour of the petitioner and he cannot expect that findings should always be
rendered in his favour. If the request of the petitioner is acceded to, there will be a lacuna in the administration of justice and by taking this case as a precedent, other parties who did not succeed in the case would start knocking at the doors of this Court with a similar prayer.
Further, a judge cannot be dictated to act in a particular manner other than those that had been enumerated in the jurisprudence and a judicial officer was entitled to get protection, the judge said and added that moreover, the Judicial Officers were protected by the Judicial Officers' Protection Act and they are not liable to be sued for discharging their judicial duty.