Delhi High Court judge recuses from a domestic violence accommodation dispute, holding that an advocate’s walkout, and his repeated cry of “I cry my beloved justice system”, was reckless, reprehensible and misconduct.
New Delhi: Four times an advocate said “I cry my beloved justice system”, waved his hands and began walking out of a Delhi High Court courtroom while the hearing was still on. The criminal writ petition before the Court, filed by a 91-year-old man against an order letting his daughter-in-law move into his Pitampura house, has since been sent to another Bench [Arjun Dev Bhatia v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors.].
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, in an order dated November 3, 2026, held that the actions of advocate R.K. Tarun, who appeared for the daughter-in-law, were “clearly reckless, reprehensible and amount to misconduct”, and rejected his apology as lip service.
A walkout in the middle of the hearing
According to the order, the Court had just dictated its directions on rent and status quo (set out below) when the counsel loudly made the remark, repeated it four times, waved his hands and started to leave “to express his dissatisfaction with the order passed”. The Court paused the hearing and called him back. He apologised, but the Court rejected the apology.
“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.”
The Court observed that the counsel appeared to be aligning himself entirely with his client’s interests, and that he may now try to influence his client and instigate frivolous allegations against the Judge and the judicial system.
“The actions of Mr. R.K. Tarun are clearly reckless, reprehensible and amount to misconduct. In these circumstances, to protect the dignity of this Court and the judicial system, this Court deems it appropriate to transfer this matter to another Bench, while retaining the aforesaid directions issued to the petitioner, the landlord and the learned ASC (Crl.).”
Subject to orders of the Judge-in-Charge (Criminal Side), the matter was directed to be listed on November 5, 2026.
What the petitioner challenged
The petitioner, Arjun Dev Bhatia, challenged an order dated October 23, 2026 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahila Court-2, North-West District, Rohini Courts, in a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The Magistrate had permitted his daughter-in-law (respondent No. 2) to enter his house at Chander Lok Enclave, Pitampura, as alternate accommodation because she faced imminent eviction from a rented flat in the same locality.
Senior Advocate Amit Chadha, for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the house and lives there, and that his son and daughter-in-law had stopped residing there in February 2010. The couple had lived in the rented flat from April 2013 until October 2026. He said the daughter-in-law entered the Pitampura house with her two children on October 24, 2026, a day after the impugned order.
Counsel for the daughter-in-law told the Court that the monthly rent of the flat was Rs 27,500 and that the son had stopped paying it from September 25, 2025, leading to an eviction decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC on his admission.
Rent on offer, and keys that changed hands in the telling
The Court asked whether the petitioner would pay the rent so that the daughter-in-law could stay in the flat or take another of equal standard. His counsel said he was willing to pay Rs 27,500 a month and to deposit six months’ rent in advance within 24 hours.
Counsel for the daughter-in-law first said she had vacated the flat and handed the keys to the landlord, a claim disputed by counsel for the son. He then said, on instructions, that she did not wish to move back to rented accommodation even if paid the rent. Later in the hearing, he stated that the keys had not been handed over and were with his client.
“It is extremely unfortunate that the stand on handover of keys to the landlord is being changed repeatedly by respondent no. 2, when the Court has specifically enquired about the status of handover of the possession of the flat to the landlord.”
The Court directed the petitioner to deposit six months’ rent with the Court and the son to deposit any arrears due to the landlord within two days. The landlord was directed to maintain status quo on possession of the flat and to appear before the Court, with the Additional Standing Counsel (Crl.) asked to have the local SHO inform him.
Why the order matters
The order is a pointed reminder that an advocate’s duty to the court sits alongside the duty to the client. Dissatisfaction with an order is to be addressed through appeal or review, not through theatrics in the courtroom. By recording the conduct in detail and transferring the matter, the Court sought to insulate the case from any later attempt to question the Bench’s fairness.
At the same time, the Court kept its interim directions on rent, arrears and status quo alive, so that the underlying dispute between a 91-year-old owner and his daughter-in-law over residence is not stalled by the transfer. The merits of the challenge to the Magistrate’s order remain to be decided by the new Bench.
Case Title: Arjun Dev Bhatia v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors. [W.P.(CRL) 3418/2026, CRL.M.A. 34225-34227/2026]
Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, Delhi High Court
Date of Order: November 3, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Amit Chadha with advocates Mustafa Alam, Harjas, Nitin Gautam, Amit Garg, Yashima Sharma, Shahzad and Liza Paras for the petitioner; Anand V Khatri, ASC (Crl.), for the State; advocates R.K. Tarun, Aditi Shivadhatri, Hemant Jain, Khushi Gupta, Capt. Subedita Rani and R.R. Bharti for respondent No. 2; advocates Gaurav Gupta and Rohit Rattu for respondent No. 3
