The Delhi High Court has transferred a domestic violence-related petition to another Bench after an advocate repeatedly remarked, “I cry my beloved justice system,” and walked out of the courtroom during the hearing. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora took serious note of the incident while retaining directions requiring the petitioner to deposit six months’ rent and the landlord to maintain the status quo over the disputed property.
Background
The petition was filed by Arjun Dev Bhatia, challenging an October 23, 2026, order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahila Court-2, Rohini Courts.
The trial court had permitted respondent no. 2, her daughter-in-law, to enter a property at 20, Chander Lok Enclave, Pitampura, as alternative accommodation following her imminent eviction from Flat No. 156, Dhundiyal Apartment.
The petitioner submitted that he was 91 years old, owned the Pitampura property and was residing there. His counsel also argued that the couple had stopped living at that property in February 2010.
During the hearing, the Court explored whether the petitioner would pay Rs. 27,500 per month towards rent so that respondent no. 2 could continue living in the rented flat or secure another accommodation of similar standard.
The petitioner's counsel informed the Court that his client was willing to pay Rs. 27,500 monthly and deposit six months' rent in advance. However, respondent no. 2's counsel stated that she had already vacated the flat and handed over its keys to the landlord. This submission was disputed by counsel representing respondent no. 3.
The Court subsequently directed:
"the petitioner is directed to deposit an amount equal to six months’ rent with this Court. If there are any arrears due and payable to the landlord, respondent no. 3 is directed to deposit that money also in this Court within two days."
The landlord, Manjit Singh Sahni, was directed to maintain the status quo regarding possession of the flat and appear before the Court on November 5, 2026, at 10:30 AM, to enable verification of the submissions concerning the handover of possession.
During the proceedings, respondent no. 2's counsel, R.K. Tarun, repeatedly remarked,
"I cry my beloved justice system" before waving his hands and walking out of the courtroom while the hearing was underway.
The Court called him back and expressed its displeasure. Although the advocate tendered an apology, Justice Arora rejected it, observing that it did not appear genuine.
The Court recorded:
"It is extremely unfortunate that a counsel, who ought to have the highest regard for the process of law, is expressing loss of faith in the judicial system, creating a nuisance of himself, because the order passed does not suit him or his client."
Describing the conduct as reckless and amounting to misconduct, the Court considered it appropriate to transfer the matter to another Bench to protect the dignity of the Court and the judicial system.
The Delhi High Court ordered that the matter be placed before another Bench, subject to directions from the Judge-in-Charge (Criminal Side).
It retained the directions concerning the six-month rent deposit, the landlord's status quo obligation and the appearance of the landlord and concerned authorities.
