Skip to main content

Woman’s advocate in earlier divorce case can appear for second husband in case against her

Bombay High Court:  In a case of appeal against a family court order, a bench comprising of Revati Mohite Dhere, J observed that if an advocate, who had represented a woman in her earlier divorce proceedings, later represents her second husband against her, it cannot be said that the advocate switched sides in the "same proceedings".  The ruling came as a relief to advocate Edith Dey who had represented the respondent in her first divorce and was now representing the respondent's second husband in the ongoing divorce case. Earlier, the family court had set aside the advocate's appointment and directed the second husband to appoint another advocate to represent him. Advocate Dey appealed against this decision arguing that there was no conflict of interest and that the two proceedings were distinct and unconnected. On the other hand, the wife's advocate Taubon Irani emphasized that advocates must maintain their clients' confidentiality.

After listening to arguments on both sides, the Court noted that nowhere had the wife contended that the said advocate was aware of any confidential information. The Court also observed that the family court had failed to take into consideration that  the divorce case where the Advocate Dey had represented the respondent-wife was converted into a petition for divorce by mutual consent in the first hearing itself. The Court also clarified that the said family court order did not decide on whether the advocate can or cannot appear for the second husband; instead, the judge held merely observed that under Section 13 of the Family Court Act, 1984, there is no inherent right in an Advocate to appear. After discussing Rule 23 of Bar Council of India rules, Section 34(1) of Advocate Act, 1961 and a related judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court, the Court came to a conclusion that an advocate cannot switch sides and appear for the opposite side in the “same proceedings” but  in this case it cannot be said that the proceedings in which the advocate  was now appearing were the "same proceedings." [Rajiv Hiranandani vs. Namrata Zakaria, Civil Writ Petition No.11135 of 2013, decided on July 31, 2014]

Article referred: http://blog.scconline.com/post/2014/09/13/woman-s-advocate-in-earlier-divorce-case-can-appear-for-second-husband-in-case-against-her.aspx

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more