Judgment Ravi S.Dhavan, J. 1. This is a miscellaneous appeal, the matter originally arises out of divorce proceedings between one Bijay Krishan Mishra and Runki Devi. This was a matter which was filed before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna. The case was registered as Matrimonial case No. 123/95 between Bijay Krishna Mishra V/s. Runki Devi and five others. The case was filed under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. Bijay Krishan Mishra was seeking a declaration (under Section 12 of the Act) that the marriage between him and the first respondent be declared as a nullity. The judgment is dated 19 September, 1998. 2. In the long considered judgment running into 25 pages, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna framed five issues for the determination of the case. The issues as framed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna as on record are: (1) Whether the case as filed is maintainable?; (2) Whether the petitioner has a valid cause of action for the case?; (3) Whether the consent of the petitioner, for the marriage, sought to be annulled on the decree of nullity sought, was obtained by force?; (4) Whether the petitioner is entitled to have the marriage between him and the first respondent annulled?; (5) To what other relief or reliefs the petitioner is entitled? The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna took the third issue first as an only important issue for the case and came to the conclusion that the petitioner, i.e. the husband, Bijay Krishna Mishra had not been able to prove that the marriage with the first respondent had taken place against his consent. This issue was decided against the petitioner. The marriage has been held as having taken place, and validly. 3. In so far as the first issue is concerned he did not find any defect in the case as was filed and held it maintainable, for consideration. On issues No. 2, 4 and 6 the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna came to the conclusion that the petitioner had no valid cause of action and was not entitled to a decree of nullity, for annulling the marriage. The decree was denied against the respondent. 4. The totality of the lower court record leaves one wondering whether the divorce case had in fact been filed by the husband Bijay Krishna Mishra. The decree was denied against the respondent. 4. The totality of the lower court record leaves one wondering whether the divorce case had in fact been filed by the husband Bijay Krishna Mishra. The record reads more as a rear guard action of parents of the groom, father and mother, who refuse to accept the marriage of their son, whom they call their handsome son with a bride whom they with no hesitation call an ugly black girl. 5. Against this judgment an appeal has been filed not so much by Bijay Krishna Mishra the husband. The appeal has been filed by persons who are not, nor can be, parties to a divorce case. These are Messers R.P. Mishra and Kalyani Mishra. They are the father and mother of the husband Bijay Krishna Mishra. What is more important is that at the time when appeal had been argued the last submission made by counsel was that the appeal be permitted to be withdrawn. The Court did not permit this prayer, as the court got the impression of these two persons getting wiser after having watched the course and trend of the proceedings. They have made personal, derogatory, insulting, inhumanly hurting remarks against a young woman, Runki Devi, who does not belong to their caste. Otherwise, the young woman happens to be their sons wife. 6. The Court is appalled that educated persons have made allegations the like of which normally are not heard in formal proceedings, such as those before a court or on the floor of the House of a legislature. May be this reality persists in the world out-side the law courts of instances of un-touchability, rampant caste bias or uncultured display of deep rooted bias and misplaced arrogance. This does not augur well for the social fabric of India no matter howsoever we may attempt to hide the truth that a caste bias still lingers like a leach on the skin. It sucks the same blood. High caste, low caste, black man, white man. The sucker is ugly. This is what this case is about. 7. In the present case by now it is clear that Runki Devi, daughter of Saroj Singh, the father and Mani Devi, the mother, has had to suffer the indignity of colour bar and has been ostracized as an untouchable. High caste, low caste, black man, white man. The sucker is ugly. This is what this case is about. 7. In the present case by now it is clear that Runki Devi, daughter of Saroj Singh, the father and Mani Devi, the mother, has had to suffer the indignity of colour bar and has been ostracized as an untouchable. The court does not have to go far to mind the insulting high caste to low caste hurled aspersions. The imputations are on record, or on an affidavit in the present appeal before the High Court. 8. R.P. Mishra, the first appellant, and the father of Bijay Krishna Mishra, in any case has no locus standi to present an appeal nor contest proceedings which are personal to the husband and wife. The husband is his son Bijay Krishna Mishra. The wife is Runki Kumari, the daughter in law, whom he does not accept. 9. When the matter came up before the court on 13th July, 2000 the Court drew the attention of the appellants to the record and the allegations which have the sting of ethnic and caste bias. 10. The Court drew the attention of the appellant R.P. Mishra that he is a citizen in a nation whose Constitution made a declaration a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to its citizen, amongst others social JUSTICE, LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and opportunity and to promote amongst its citizen FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the citizen. The Court indicated in its order that this is not a matter which the Court can ignore, or ought it to take the expressions of the petitioner lightly. The Court had directed that the first appellant appear at the Bar of the Court. The Court had several reasons, for calling the first appellant to appear. One of the reasons was that the. first appellant is a Government servant and, further, he is an Inspector in the Bihar Intelligence Unit, Patna, he is an officer in the police cadre. 11. In the meantime the Court had also directed, by its order dated 25th July, 2000 that the records of the Family Court in Matrimonial Case No. 123/95 be summoned. The Court thought it appropriate to summon the record by virtue of sub section (4) of Section 19 of the Act. 12. 11. In the meantime the Court had also directed, by its order dated 25th July, 2000 that the records of the Family Court in Matrimonial Case No. 123/95 be summoned. The Court thought it appropriate to summon the record by virtue of sub section (4) of Section 19 of the Act. 12. On 24th July, 2000 a supplementary affidavit was filed by the first appellant, R.P. Mishra, now submitting that he is not a legal expert and was not aware of the provisions of the Constitution of India and he had used the words against the first respondent (Runki Devi) innocently. In this supplementary affidavit he tendered an unqualified apology and desired that the remarks be expugned. The Court indicated to him that if the offending expression were against the court, partaking the nature of contemptuous statements the court would have considered the apology on genuine remorse being expressed. Or, if there were contemptuous actions then the Court would have considered accepting an apology for any violation of the Courts order. But the remarks were offensive to the dignity of a man or woman and were made deliberately with due calculation to enter a proceeding of matrimonial relations where fathers and mothers have no place unless they are contributors to a destructive approach to their progenys marriage. The remarks, made were engineered and were made to hurt where it hurts most; the dignity of a person. The question of Court accepting the apology did not arise. 13. On the day when the Court reserved order the first appellant R.P. Mishra was also filing another affidavit and application, seeking a prayer that his name and his wifes name be deleted as appellants. He prayed, in effect, that the names of R.P. Mishra and Kalyani Mishra be deleted from the memorandum of appeal. This prayer was being made after more than two years, and also after the case has been heard. 14. Now, let the court examine on record the expressions the first appellant R.P. Mishra has made on a sworn affidavit before the High Court. The affidavit was sworn to support an appeal in a matrimonial case, between Bijay Krishna Mishra, and Runki Devi. R.P. Mishra and Kalyani Mishra the first and second appellants are only the father and mother of Bijay Krishna Mishra, appellant No. 3. The affidavit of R.P. Mishra is dated 7th December 1998. The affidavit was sworn to support an appeal in a matrimonial case, between Bijay Krishna Mishra, and Runki Devi. R.P. Mishra and Kalyani Mishra the first and second appellants are only the father and mother of Bijay Krishna Mishra, appellant No. 3. The affidavit of R.P. Mishra is dated 7th December 1998. In fact the appeal was filed by R.P. Mishra. He states that : 1- I am father of petitioner and I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of dase (sic). 2. That I have gone through the contents of this petition and have fully understood the ame (sic) and they are true to my knowledge. The Appeal, in fact, has been filed by the father of the groom. The groom, the so called aggrieved husband has not filed the appeal. This aspect is relevant. It is relevant because before the court below (The Court of the Principal Judge Family Court, Patna), R.P. Mishra, the father of the groom had shown unwarranted interest in the proceedings. In fact, the respondent, Runki Devi, had complained in her written statement paragraph 11 to state in fact the petitioner aforesaid has filed the present case under the pressure of the father who is actually fighting the case. 15. The interest of R.P. Mishra, father of the groom, is apparent and overt. He sent an application to the Court of Principal Judge Family Court, Patna, by registered post. It was received and placed on record on 11 September 1997 and lies between pages 50 to 56. In this application in paragraph 4, R.P. Mishra states that it is not possible for and spector of Police to choose for his eldest son a girl who lives in a iodge where ten male students also reside and there is only one bath-room without a root. He further states in paragraph 5 that once this girl was found to be living in the lodge she shifted to a room on rent in a locality which was full of filth. In paragraph 6 he says there are many fathers of girls who would like to marry their daughter to the eldest son of an Inspector and an Inspector of Police would not choose such a girl who has lived for three years in a room of a lodge. In paragraph 6 he says there are many fathers of girls who would like to marry their daughter to the eldest son of an Inspector and an Inspector of Police would not choose such a girl who has lived for three years in a room of a lodge. In paragraph 7 he says that the opposite party is suffering from many diseases and she should be examined by the Civil Surgeon, Patna. In paragraph 8 he says that Runki Devi is not fit for marriage with his son. 16. In paragraph 5 of the appeal R.P. Mishra calls Runki Devi the respondent wife of his son, whom he does not accept, as the most ugly, black and patent (sic) girl. What R.P. Mishra, the fllst appellant has intended to say is that Runki Kumari is the most ugly black girl. During arguments it was explained to the Court that the word patent as was used was meant to qualify the colour black as patent black, jet black. The Court is mentioning this because now in the supplementary affidavit of 24th July, 2000 it is being explained after almost two years, that the word patent should be understood as sickness, meaning patient. It was explained to the court that the adjective black, attributed to the young woman, should be understood to read as the most ugly black and patient girl. It was being clarified to the Court that it was intended to convey that Runki Devi was the most ugly black and sick girl. 17. Continuing his insulting expressions in paragraph 9 of the memorandum of appeal, R.P. Mishra makes an odious comparion between his son and his sons wife. He calls himself and his son as who is father of the most handsome boy. And in this context he makes an assertion in paragraph 11 he points to Runki Devi in the following terms : If she was meeting the son of the petitioner before her marriage, she must be a girl of very bad character. Then again in paragraph 11 the following is recorded : Because how can the most handsome boy have great affection with the most ugly black and patent girl. In paragraph 11 he again continues his tirade to say because no newly married girl is allowed to put on salwar and froke (sic) in the house of the husband particularly in Bhimiha Brahmin Society? In paragraph 11 he again continues his tirade to say because no newly married girl is allowed to put on salwar and froke (sic) in the house of the husband particularly in Bhimiha Brahmin Society? what was being conveyed on record was that in a Brahmin family no married girl will wear either salwar or a frock or dress. The remarks against Runki Devi continue in paragraph 13, of the appeal. The first appellant says Runki Devi cannot tell even name of the Gotra. 18. By this time the first appellant has made it clear on record of a court proceeding of his superiority that he belongs to a particular caste and that he takes it as an insult and offence, both that his son should be married with an ugly black girl or an ugly black patient girl. 19. The appellant R.P. Mishra has no locus standi even to present this appeal. If this is an appeal out of genuine divorce proceedings arising out of a marital discord of a suit before the Judge, Family Court, may be the person aggrieved by a decision, granting or rejecting a divorce, granting or rejecting maintenance, permitting or denying custody of children, may challenge such a decision by an appeal to the High Court. R.P. Mishra is not the groom. His co-appellant, his wife Kalyani Mishra is not the bride. and their marriage is not an issue. Further, before the Court below there is no issue that their son (who is the groom and the husband) has already stated before the Principal Judge Family Court, that because of his parents he cannot live together with his wife. Thus, this appeal has not been filed by the husband. It has been filed by his parents. Do they have a locus standi? 20. Another aspect though technical, yet needs to be recorded. The appeal has been dismissed for default and non prosecution on 4.1.1999. An application, bearing I.A. No. 8546 of 1999 was filed for recall of the order by which the appeal had been dismissed for want of prosecution. This application is pending. The record of the appeal cannot lie in a state with all the unsavoury, uncultured, uncivilized, defamatory, remarks made by R. Mishra, appellant No. 1, on-oath against a young girl, fit enough to be his daughter, another parents child, and bride to his son. This application is pending. The record of the appeal cannot lie in a state with all the unsavoury, uncultured, uncivilized, defamatory, remarks made by R. Mishra, appellant No. 1, on-oath against a young girl, fit enough to be his daughter, another parents child, and bride to his son. Appellant R.P. Mishra may not accept the relationship. It is, thus, the court is recording this order, while the application for restoration of the case has also been considered. The appeal is not wor- thy of being considered. But the remarks of Appellant, as a personal attack on the first respondent Runki Devi, his daughter in law whom he does not accept, shall not remain on record without comment by the High Court, as in this order. 21. Appellant, R.P. Mishra is a police officer in State Service. He is claiming superiority of status by caste. He is demeaning the respect of Runki Devi as being inferior to his caste and social status. He has ostracised Runki Devi as inferior by refusing to permit his son to associate with his bride on a misplaced arrogance of colour of skin and a superior caste. This is untouchability, the appellant R.P. Mishra is practising ostracism. He has violated the Constitution of India. He has offended the civil rights of Runki Devi. He has violated the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the spirit of the Constitution of India. As a police official the Appellant R.P. Mishra claims status in government, an illusion that he is the State. But the State and its law prohibit discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste and sex. The Appellant has shown prejudice to colour of skin. The Appellant has claimed superior status by caste and by ostracising his sons wife practises untouchability; a scourge abolished by the Constitution. The Appellant has attacked Runki Devi by making personal allegations against her morality and character. Even if she was not his sons wife, the Appellant had no cause to make allegations against her. She is also the daughter of parents, may be not of the Appellants caste. The Appellant has attacked Runki Devi by making personal allegations against her morality and character. Even if she was not his sons wife, the Appellant had no cause to make allegations against her. She is also the daughter of parents, may be not of the Appellants caste. The Appellant has made an allegation of the girl having an affair with his son but, conveniently forgets that his chauvinism as a male has got the better of him, and that he was so blind so as to shut out the aspect that he may have an amorous son who may have adventured too far with his girl friend. The girls family in the circumstances, saw a dead end only in a marriage which happened and the court below has declared that it did take place. 22. Marriage is a personal decision by two people. Even if it is more often a parental decision in our society, it is still in law a relationship between two people. If they later find they are unable to live with each other happilyfor whatever reasonthe laws on divorce give a way to untie the tie that binds the couple in a legal and civil way. Instead of allowing this process to go on in civility, the father of one of the parties has entered the fray, in which he has no legal place, to throw mud on the other party. He slanders her character because she was living in a lodge, he claims shes indecent because she doesnt wear a sari, he seems to feel she is beyond the pale of social relationship because she doesnt know her gotra. 23. This shows a pattern of contempt for women, male chauvinism and caste and class prejudice which is wholly inappropriate for a government servant in a democratic country. It is particularly misplaced in a member of the police force, who has great power to injure the classes of people he holds in contempt. 24. The Appellant R.P. Mishra in any case has no locus standi in a divorce proceeding between his son and his sons wife, dismissed by the Court below. This appeal before the High Court otherwise stands dismissed for want of prosecution. Its restoration cannot be granted, more so in the background noted by the High Court in this order. A dismissed case can- not be withdrawn, either. 25. This appeal before the High Court otherwise stands dismissed for want of prosecution. Its restoration cannot be granted, more so in the background noted by the High Court in this order. A dismissed case can- not be withdrawn, either. 25. A copy of this order will be sent to the Chief Secretary, Bihar Director General of Police, Bihar and the Judicial Secretary and the Legal Remembrancer, Bihar so that they are aware that a Bihar State Police Official has made disparaging insulting remarks against a woman, has violated the spirit of the Constitution, the protection of Civil Rights Act 1955, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court expects the State of Bihar to take appropriate action. 26. For the insulting remarks against Runki Devi, recorded in pleadings before the Court below and before the High Court in the proceedings and not having shown any remorse and regret, which remarks the High Court finds as vexatious, insulting and defamatory and have been made without cause, the appellant R.P. Mishra will pay costs to the above named respondent. The costs shall stand at Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand). The costs are to be deposited with the Registrar General, High Court within two months from today, failing these costs may be realised as a decree of this Court. A suit for further damages will be available to the respondent Runki Devi in a court of jurisdiction, in addition to these costs. Shashank Kumar Singh, J. 27 I agree.