LUCKNOW, June 1 -- The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has rejected a petition seeking the ouster of a high court judge's husband from the post of standing counsel, Uttar Pradesh government. The court said there was no proof to show that the advocate may have taken advantage of his relationship so as to constitute professional or any other kind of misconduct. The order was passed by a division bench comprising justice Rajan Roy and justice Om Prakash Shukla on May 28 on a petition filed by a local lawyer Anupam Mehrotra in person. The petitioner had also requested the court that the high court judge's husband be directed to not appear as an advocate in the high court as long as she is a judge. He had also sought a direction to temporarily remove the advocate from the roll of advocates of the high court. The petitioner submitted that the rules framed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) prohibit an advocate from appearing before the Lucknow bench of the high court where his wife is a sitting judge. On the other hand, the counsel for the high court administration relied upon a Delhi high court judgment to argue that the BCI rules only prohibit an advocate from appearing in the court where any of his relatives is a presiding judge and not the entire court. Chief standing counsel for the U.P. government Shailendra Kumar Singh contended that the advocate fulfilled the eligibility criteria and was a qualified legal practitioner. After considering the submissions, the court rejected the allegation of the petitioner that the advocate was running his office from the residence of his wife who is a high court judge. "A writ petition drafted by a Lawyer especially one who is appearing in person and has 30 years practice behind him should not contain such intemperate language as has been used herein. We pointed out this fact to the petitioner towards the end of the arguments and he stated that he will keep this in mind in future, but, what about the fodder he has supplied for rumour mongers in the corridors and outside it, by making such averments. He should ponder over it seriously, introspect as to whether he is utilizing his intellectual capacity in the right direction", the court observed. "What purpose is sought to be served by making such averments, without any basis? We say no more in the solemn hope that the petitioner will introspect, take corrective measures and shall utilize his legal acumen and intellect for achieving higher goals," the court further said while dismissing the petition at the admission stage. MANOJ KUMAR SINGH...