The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reprimanded a law officer in Haryana for appearing as a State counsel in a criminal case pending against her husband.
The couple are entangled in matrimonial litigation and have cases pending at various courts.
Justice Archana Puri observed that the Assistant District Attorney (APP) had not followed the ethics of law by appearing as State counsel in the sexual harassment case filed by a different complainant against her husband. She had not even revealed her relationship with the accused to the Court.
“The said conduct be noted by the District and Sessions Judge and he should ensure that [the APP does] not appear as State counsel, in any case arising out of her matrimonial dispute with the applicant [husband],” the Court ordered.
The order was passed on a plea seeking transfer of a maintenance petition filed by the couple’s daughter from Panchkula to Chandigarh. The husband submitted before the Court that since his wife is APP at Panchkula, she was exerting influence in relation to the cases pending against him.
In this regard, he placed on record orders showing the wife’s presence as APP in the sexual harassment case on several dates. The husband also submitted that an application for leading additional evidence has been filed in that case on behalf of the APP for recall of the complainant.
On the other hand, the counsel representing the wife submitted that she had appeared in the criminal case only as a stop-gap arrangement as the other APP was on leave.
It was also pointed out the husband himself had a petition before the High Court for transfer of an execution petition from Bhiwani to Panchkula. He had not raised the argument related to his wife’s posting at Panchkula in that case, it was contended.
After considering the arguments, the Court commented adversely about the conduct of both husband and wife.
“It was required on the part of xxx, to immediately bring it to the notice of the Court concerned, where the case was pending, about her relationship with the accused [husband], that it was not so done. In the said case, xxx had not made appearance once, rather, there were repetitive appearances made by her. In the given circumstances, it cannot be ruled out that xxx inter-meddled in the pending criminal litigation, with some purpose or making an exaggerated effort to secure the success of the case, against [husband],” it said.
The Court added that the husband’s conduct also was not above board as he had raised the objection about wife’s posting only after securing interim stay in the execution petition pertaining to the arrears of maintenance. This is also a very reprehensible conduct, the Court said.
“In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, both the parties are trying to befool the Courts, for their own vested interest, in an exaggerated effort to seek transfer of the cases, criss-cross, with a sole purpose to harass each other,” the Court said, as it rejected the husband’s transfer plea.
However, the High Court also asked the trial court to remain vigilant in the matter since the wife is working as an APP there.
“So far as, assertion of exercise of influence, to get favourable order, is concerned, the Court concerned also, shall remain vigilant, with regard to conduct of both the applicant, as well as mother of the respondent, namely, xxx, who is working as ‘Assistant District Attorney’ and deliver the verdict, as and when required fearlessly,” it said.
Advocate Virender Kumar represented the husband.