Madras High Court judge apologises to women litigants after lawyer posed humiliating questions to them during cross-examination

In a rare gesture, Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy of the Madras High Court called out the prevalent misogyny among the Bar and in society in general, while apologising to four women litigants for the “insensitivity” shown by a lawyer who posed “humiliating questions" during their cross-examination in a property suit [Leelavathi v. Kamala]..In his judgment passed on Thursday, Justice Chakravarthy said that it was time that the legal system was a little more empathetic to litigants who approached the courts for justice."This kind of insensitivity and mistakes which assassinate the character are generally masked for public consumption in the judgment. But, I am constrained to extract the same, because, such insensitive cross-examination, especially in the absence of any valid material regarding the same, should not be resorted to. A learned brother member of the Bar had done so, which also happened under the supervision of the Court. Therefore, on this score also, this Court conveys its apologies to P.W.1 in particular and the plaintiffs in general," the Court said..The Court was hearing a suit pertaining to a dispute over the partition of a private property. A woman and her three daughters had filed a plea in a local court challenging the decision of their father to bestow all his property to his son born through his second wife. The man had married for a second time without divorcing his first wife, because the first wife had 'failed' to bear him a male child. During the cross-examination before a lower court, the lawyer representing the father had insinuated that the girls' mother had a questionable character, and that the girls were born to another man while their mother had lied about their paternity. A lower court had restrained the son and the second wife from encumbering the suit property. The two, therefore, approached the High Court challenging the lower court's order. .After deciding the case, Justice Chakravarthy took pains to extract the instance of misogyny that occurred during the trial, something which is usually "masked for public consumption". He said,"This kind of insensitivity and mistakes which assassinate the character are generally masked for public consumption in the judgment. But, I am constrained to extract the same, because, such insensitive cross examination, especially in the absence of any valid material regarding the same, should not be resorted to."He added, however, that such misogyny was not an individual mistake of the lawyer, but was a reflection of a collective failure on the part of society.The Court further stated that the purpose of cross-examination was not to humiliate litigants, or create indelible scars in their mind."On behalf of the society at large, this Court conveys the due apologies to the plaintiffs 2 to 4, the daughters and that they can be rest assured that they are as good as sons for all purposes and that is the purport of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005," Justice Chakravarthy said..Deciding the appeal, the Court held that the appellant wife and daughters would be entitled to 19/25th shares in the suit properties which were held to be ancestral properties, while the son of the respondent would be entitled to 6/25th share of the properties..Advocate N Manokaran appeared for the appellants, while Advocates V Raghavachari and KS Karthik Raja represented the respondents..[Read Judgment]