"Why did you get into this mess?", the Supreme Court recently said to a woman lawyer for getting into an intimate relationship with her client, a man, who had come to her seeking advice on his divorce case.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and R Mahadevan said that the lady, being an advocate, should have maintained professional boundaries with her client, particularly when his divorce had not concluded.

The Court questioned why the woman, who is 36 years old and a practising advocate, entered into a personal relationship with her own client.

“She is an advocate. She is handling the petitioner’s divorce case. Why did you do that? We don’t expect this," the Court said.

When she insisted she had only “guided” him and never formally appeared, the Court noted that the distinction made little difference if she acted as his legal advisor while becoming personally involved.

The Court was hearing the man’s petition seeking anticipatory bail in a case filed by the woman, who had been representing him in his matrimonial dispute before they entered a personal relationship.

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Rishi Malhotra submitted that the complainant, a practising lawyer, had filed “four identical cases” of sexual assault against different accused persons and that the Bombay High Court had even ordered an inquiry into her conduct.

Justice Nagarathna took note of the complainant’s professional background and asked how an advocate could cross the line of propriety with a client she was representing in a divorce case.

“She should have known that until he gets a divorce decree, he cannot get married to your party. She is not an ordinary, uneducated or naive person..She is an advocate. She is handling the petitioner's divorce case. Why did you do that?,” Justice Nagarathna asked.

At this point, the woman advocate personally intervened.

"No, I was not handling his case. He only came to me for the guidance. I never appeared for him. I never represented and did not take any case.", she said.

The Court however, remained unmoved.

When the lady's counsel attempted to portray the petitioner, who is now in London, as absconding, the bench clarified that such a claim could not stand since the man had been residing abroad long before the dispute arose.The Court also rejected contentions of the man being declared a proclaimed offender.

"He has not even joined investigation... It was a love relation, I cannot testify what had transpired between the love birds," the respondent counsel said.

"No coercive steps", the bench said in the meanwhile protecting the man from arrest.

The Court then asked the respondent’s side to file a detailed affidavit to clarify her version of events, remarking that it would not accept her allegations at face value.

“Advise your client. Get out of this mess. Let her concentrate on her profession," the bench said.

It then noted that that the charge sheet had already been filed and the petitioner had expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation upon arrival in India.

The matter will be heard next on December 12.