Serious Allegation Raised Against Judge In Person: Kerala High Court Asks Bar Council To Probe Advocate’s Misconduct
The Kerala High Court was considering a criminal revision petition in a maintenance case.
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar, Kerala High Court
While noting that a baseless allegation was raised by Advocate P.K.Ibrahim against a Judge presiding over a matrimonial matter, the Kerala High Court has asked the Bar Council to intervene and probe his alleged misconduct.
The High Court was considering a criminal revision petition in a maintenance case.
The Single Bench of Justice C. Pratheep Kumar stated, “Though this court called upon him to argue the revision petition time and again, without utilising that opportunity, he has raised such a serious allegation against the judge, in person. When such a baseless allegation is raised against this court, it may not be fair on my part to probe into the matter, as no one shall be a judge in his own cause. I honestly believe that the Bar is the best judge of Judges. Therefore, I am leaving this matter to the Bar (as well as to the Bar Council) to decide on the propriety of making those allegations by Advocate Sri.P.K.Ibrahim and whether or not it amounts to professional misconduct.”
Advocate Zakhier Huzzain represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The revision petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and father of a minor boy aged 8 years. The respondent approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, claiming various reliefs, including maintenance. The Magistrate directed the revision petitioner to pay maintenance to his wife and child at the rate of Rs 20,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively, which was enhanced to Rs 25,000 each in appeal. Aggrieved by the said appellate order, he preferred this revision.
When the matter came up before this Bench on December 12, 2025, the respondents pressed for an interim order on the ground that the revision petitioner, who is drawing several lakhs of Rupees as salary from his employment abroad, was not paying any maintenance. The revision petitioner was directed to pay the maintenance ordered by the court below (at the rate of Rs 25,000 per month) to the child, including arrears, until further orders. Interim stay continued as against the maintenance ordered in favour of the respondent wife.
Even though an opportunity was given to Advocate P.K. Ibrahim to argue the Criminal Revision Petition, he was not prepared to argue the same, and he insisted on recalling the December 12 order before arguing the Criminal Revision Petition. When this request was turned down by this court, in the open court, he repeatedly declared in loud voice that he lost confidence of this Court and that he was not prepared to argue the matter before this bench. Thereafter, he filed the memo relinquishing the vakalath of the revision petitioner and imputing allegations against the court. In his memo, he stated that his accountability to the client directed him not to proceed with this matter with a bench that lost judicial propriety and had the least concern for natural justice.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the conduct of Advocate Ibrahim, the Bench noted that he wanted to protract the revision petition, without paying interim maintenance to the respondents.
“The only endeavour of this court was to render justice to the maximum number of litigants, at the earliest. Now, a learned senior member of the Bar has raised a very serious allegation that this court lost judicial propriety and has least concern for natural justice, just for passing a judicial order. That too, for directing a father to pay interim maintenance to his own ailing minor son, until further orders. If there was anything wrong in that order, the best option available for protecting the interest of his client was to argue the criminal revision petition itself”, it added.
Taking note of the fact that the allegation was raised against Justice Kumar, who was presiding over the matter on December 12, 2025, and further stating that no one should be a judge in his own cause, the Bench asked the Bar (as well as to the Bar Council) to decide on the propriety of making those allegations by the Advocate and whether or not it amounted to professional misconduct.
Cause Title: A v. B (Case No.: Crl. Rev. Pet No.804/2025)
Appearance
Respondent: M/S. Shafik M.A., Advocate Zakhier Huzzain