‘Writ Court Not for Family Vendetta’: Madras HC Slams Father-in-Law for Using Article 226 Amid Divorce Battle

The Madras High Court recently rejected a plea seeking recovery of ₹40 lakh from a woman doctor after finding that the petition had been filed by her father-in-law amid an ongoing divorce between her and his son.

Court remarked, "There is no end to docket multiplication, when it comes to family disputes...In this case also, a disgruntled father-in-law, by completely suppressing the fact that the 5th respondent is his own daughter-in-law, has filed the writ petition. It is not even averred, how the petitioner is personally aggrieved in the writ petition. If the petitioner is not personally aggrieved, then the petition should have been filed as a public interest litigation and that is also not done."

Court stressed that only to wreak vengeance, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be invoked.

The writ petition was filed by P. Balasubramaniyam, who sought a direction to the Tamil Nadu government and medical education authorities to recover the amount from Dr S. Monika, a postgraduate surgeon, alleging that she had failed to comply with the mandatory service bond after completing her MS (General Surgery) course in a government medical college in April 2019.

The petitioner claimed that Dr Monika had been admitted as a non-service postgraduate candidate under the state quota during the 2016–2017 academic session and was therefore required either to serve a stipulated period in government service or pay a penalty of ₹40 lakh. Alleging that she had not fulfilled the bond obligation, he relied on a letter dated June 23, 2025, issued by the Dean of Government Stanley Medical College, which referred to the amount payable for non-compliance.

Stating that repeated representations and several applications filed under the Right to Information Act had not yielded any action from the authorities, the petitioner approached the court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the state to initiate recovery proceedings against the doctor.

Appearing for the state, the Government Advocate did not dispute that Dr Monika was a non-service candidate and submitted that action regarding non-compliance with the bond conditions was under consideration. However, the state raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the petitioner had no locus standi to seek enforcement of the bond.

The issue of maintainability gained significance when counsel for Dr Monika pointed out that the petitioner was her father-in-law, a fact that had not been disclosed in the writ petition. It was submitted that divorce proceedings were pending between Dr Monika and the petitioner’s son and that the present writ petition was a continuation of the matrimonial dispute.

Court was also informed that the petitioner had earlier lodged a complaint against Dr Monika before the Tamil Nadu Medical Council. That complaint, after an enquiry, had been dismissed by a detailed order passed in December 2025.

Taking note of the issue, court flagged the increasing tendency of family disputes spilling over into multiple legal proceedings across different forums.

The bench of Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that matrimonial conflicts, which are meant to be addressed before family courts through counselling, mediation, and trial, were now being carried into criminal courts and even constitutional courts.

Court noted that the petitioner had completely suppressed the fact that the fifth respondent was his own daughter-in-law and had failed to explain how he was personally aggrieved by the alleged failure to recover the bond amount. It held that if the issue was genuinely one of public concern, the petitioner ought to have approached the court by way of a public interest litigation.

Holding that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to settle personal scores or “wreak vengeance,” the High Court dismissed the writ petition and imposed costs of ₹2,000 on the petitioner, payable to the Director of Medical Education.

Case Title: P.Balasubramaniyam vs. The Principal Secretary to Government, Health And Family Welfare Department, and Others

Order Date: January 12, 2026

Bench: Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy