Chennai: The Madras High Court recently delivered a stern warning against the growing trend of personal and matrimonial disputes overflowing into constitutional jurisdictions. In a significant ruling, the court dismissed a writ petition filed by a man seeking to recover ₹40 lakh from his daughter-in-law, observing that the litigation was an attempt to "wreak vengeance" amid an ongoing divorce battle between the woman and the petitioner’s son.

Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, while presiding over the case, expressed deep concern over the "docket multiplication" of family disputes. The court noted that what should typically be handled within the specialized framework of Family Courts is increasingly being dragged into Criminal Courts and now, even into High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner, P. Balasubramaniyam, had approached the High Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus. He requested the court to direct the Tamil Nadu Health and Family Welfare Department and medical authorities to take action against Dr. S. Monika (Respondent No. 5).

The crux of the petitioner’s argument was an alleged breach of a medical service bond. Dr. Monika, a postgraduate surgeon, had completed her M.S. (General Surgery) at a government medical college in April 2019. Under the state’s policy, non-service candidates selected under the state quota are required to serve the government for a specific period or pay a penalty—in this case, ₹40 lakhs.

The father-in-law claimed that despite completing her course years ago, the doctor had not fulfilled her bond service. He cited a letter from the Dean of Government Stanley Medical College dated June 23, 2025, which discussed the recovery of the bond amount. He further argued that despite several Right to Information (RTI) queries and representations, the government authorities had failed to act, prompting him to seek the court's intervention.

The case took a dramatic turn when the court examined the relationship between the parties. Counsel for Dr. Monika revealed a crucial fact that the petitioner had completely omitted from his affidavit: the petitioner was Dr. Monika’s own father-in-law.

The court was informed that:

Matrimonial Dispute: Divorce proceedings were currently pending between Dr. Monika and the petitioner’s son.
Prior Harassment: The petitioner had previously filed a complaint against her before the Tamil Nadu Medical Council, which was dismissed in December 2025 after a detailed enquiry.
Personal Vendetta: The writ petition was not a genuine concern for public funds, but a strategic move to harass the daughter-in-law during the divorce.

The state government, represented by the Government Advocate, admitted that while the doctor was indeed a non-service candidate and bond compliance was being reviewed, the petitioner had no locus standi (legal standing) to bring this specific matter to court.

Justice Chakravarthy’s judgment touched upon a troubling trend in modern Indian litigation. He noted that there seems to be "no end" to the multiplication of cases when it comes to family disputes.

"From the Family Courts, it is expanded to Criminal Courts and the other jurisdictions and now, slowly, all subjects under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are also being occupied for the dispute," the court remarked.

The Bench emphasized the importance of the standard legal process for family issues, which involves counseling, mediation, and trial within the Family Court system. The judge lamented that parties are increasingly bypassing these amicable or specialized routes to launch multi-pronged legal attacks on each other.

A central theme of the dismissal was the petitioner's lack of "personal grievance." In legal terms, to file a Writ of Mandamus, the person must show that their own legal rights are being violated.

The court pointed out two major flaws in the petitioner’s approach:

Lack of Personal Interest: The petitioner could not explain how the government’s failure to collect a bond from a doctor personally harmed him.
Failure to file a PIL: If the petitioner felt that the non-recovery of ₹40 lakh was a loss to the public exchequer, the proper route would have been a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). However, since he filed it as an individual writ and suppressed his relationship with the respondent, his true intentions were laid bare.

The High Court held that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is meant for the protection of rights and the enforcement of law, not for settling personal scores or satisfying a "disgruntled" relative's desire for revenge.

The court stated:

"Only to wreak vengeance, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot be invoked. Therefore, finding no merits, the Writ Petition is dismissed."

To discourage such "frivolous" and "malicious" litigation, the court imposed a cost of ₹2,000 on the petitioner. He has been directed to pay this amount to the Director of Medical Education (the 3rd Respondent).

This judgment serves as a significant precedent for several reasons:

Deterrence: It discourages family members from using administrative law to interfere in matrimonial disputes.
Transparency: It highlights that "suppression of material facts" (like a family relationship) is enough ground for the court to throw out a case.
Judicial Economy: It addresses the issue of "docket explosion," where courts are burdened by cases that are essentially personal vendettas disguised as legal claims.

Case Details:

Case Title: P. Balasubramaniyam v. The Principal Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department & Others
Case Number: W.P.No.27651 of 2025
Date of Order: January 12, 2026
Bench: Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy