CHENNAI : Aggrieved over the Tiruvallur Additional District Judge’s ruling in a matrimonial case, a man moved the Madras High Court seeking to implead the judge as a party-respondent in the matter.
However, Justice S Vaidyanathan dismissed the civil miscellaneous second appeal saying if the plea is accepted, it would affect the independence of the judiciary and open the floodgate for unnecessary proceedings and that a judge should be free to make independent decisions.
Appellant Pu Venkatesan of Mogappair West said he got married in July 1991 and separated from his wife in 2002. While so, he moved the Subordinate Judge in Tiruvallur to restore his conjugal rights in 2014. His wife filed a petition seeking divorce on the ground that he was impotent.
The Subordinate Judge, on January 22, 2018, granted divorce. The man 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 appeal, in which he wanted to include the District Judge as a party-respondent. He submitted that the judge had deliberately violated 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’.
‘Judge can’t be dictated to act in specific manner’
The judge, by way of her judgment, had closed all doors of reunion, thereby spoiled his reputation and dignity and he was also forced to face mental torture and agony by filing yet another appeal. The man also submitted that he was entitled for compensation from the judge for the agony he was suffering.
However, Justice Vaidyanathan rejected the contentions. Admittedly, the order passed by the District Judge was not in favour of the petitioner and he cannot expect that findings to 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 to the lis, who did not succeed in the case will start knocking at the doors of this court with similar prayer.
In other words, in case the finding rendered by the District Judge, Tiruvallur, had been in his favour and the wife comes with the similar petition, will it be justified? And in that process, there will be no end to the proceedings and the judicial officers will certainly be scared to discharge their official duty and feel that Damocles Sword is hanging over their head.
Further, a judge cannot be dictated to act in a particular manner other than those that had been enumerated in the jurisprudence. A judicial officer was entitled to get protection and the object of the same was not to protect malicious or corrupt judges, but to protect the public from dangers to which the administration of justice would be exposed, if the concerned judicial officers were subjected to inquiry as to malice, or to litigation with those whom their decisions might offend. If anything was done contrary to this, it would certainly affect the independence of the judiciary, as a judge should be free to make independent decisions, Justice Vaidyanathan said.
Appellant alleges mental torture
The appellant said the district judge had closed all doors of reunion, spoiled his reputation and dignity, subjecting him to mental torture.