High Court flays advocates for coming between father, child

Justice CV Karthikeyan, recording the incident in his order, said that it was evident that the child was being restrained by the grandmother. There were as many as 10 advocates, who were surrounding the child, he said. “The advocates have formed a gang to prevent the child from interacting with the father, who is the natural guardian. Their attitude is in direct contempt against the functioning of the court and the judicial proceeding,” he observed. 

The judge then directed the Registry to gather the enrollment numbers of the advocates involved—Vasanth Kumar, Anantha Raman, Ayub Khan, Dinesh Raj and Premkumar— and forward them to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, stating that they had directly interfered with the process of judicial proceedings. 

Also, holding that it was clearly seen that the advocates had obstructed the father from even visiting the child, Justice Karthikeyan, said, “This cannot be tolerated and should be viewed seriously. Consequently, the entire fact is recorded in the judicial order, so that even in future, this can be pointed out to show that the father is in a much disadvantageous situation, though he is the natural guardian of the child.” 

Recording the aspect that the Court had an interaction with the child and heard her views following which, the grandmother was directed on December 18, 2017 to produce the child before Dr Sangeetha Madhu, Clinical Psychologist for counselling, the judge on recording the date on which the father had fixed the appointment with the said doctor, directed him to be present in the counselling sessions as the father is the natural guardian of the child. 

He also noted that, “If the advocates are really interested in the welfare of the child, they should be the first persons to voluntarily come forward and convince the grandmother and the child. Likewise, the grandmother should also come forward to convince the child, taking into the consideration the welfare of the child for her future.” 

The judge then directed the registry to call the case on January 3, 2018 for reporting about the fact as to whether the child was taken to counselling session as directed by the Court.