In the article, we explore various sections of the Family Courts Act, 1984, shedding light on important legal cases and their implications.
These sections cover a wide range of topics related to family law, from the role of Family Courts in resolving disputes to the jurisdiction of civil courts.
Additionally, we touch upon alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, highlighting how they can be utilized in conjunction with the Act’s provisions. This comprehensive overview aims to provide readers with valuable insights into the legal landscape surrounding family matters in India.
These are the cases related to section 1 of the Family Courts Act.
Komal S Padukone vs Principal Judge, Family Court, AIR 1999 Bang. 427
Many female litigants need help from others even to get to court. Such situations would make it more difficult and miserable for litigants if all parties were required to appear in person at each hearing date. To avoid causing the parties it hears cases from undue hardship, the Family Court should take a pragmatic and humanitarian approach to organising its business.
Sunil Hansraj Gupta vs Payal Sunil Gupta, AIR 1991 Bom. 423
When a woman and children cannot support themselves, it is essential to establish Family Courts as soon as possible to expand the jurisdiction and ensure that they can live as “human beings” in the truest sense.
Abdul Jaleel vs Shahida, AIR 2003 SC 2525
It is widely accepted that the jurisdiction of the courts explicitly established to settle specific types of disputes should be constructed broadly.
Gangadharan vs State of Kerala, AIR 2006 SC 2360
Family Court might be moved around the local area from one location to another.
Laxmi Kant Pandey vs UOI, AIR 1984 SC 469
Guardianship issues are also handled by the Family Courts. The Guardians and Wards Act of 1890 prohibits foreign parents from taking an Indian citizen’s child out of India unless the court has designated the foreign parent as the child’s guardian and has been given permission by the court to do so. Therefore, as of right now, the only way a foreign parent can adopt a child from India is to apply to the court where the child typically dwells to be named guardian of the person and given permission to take the child out of India and adopt it there under the laws of his own country.
P Srihari vs P Sukunda, II (2001) DMC (AP) 135
The Family Court lacks the authority to hear a case involving a property dispute between siblings, parents, mothers, or other relatives.
Smt. Rathna vs MP Ramachandra, I (1998) DMC (Kant.) 318
The authority to hear all lawsuits and actions, including a maintenance lawsuit or procedure, has been granted to the Family Court.
C Azaraiah vs The Judge, Family Courts, I (1998) DMC (AP) 313
The Family Court has the authority to hear cases involving claims for relief and incidentally has the competence to hear and decide requests for interlocutory orders under section 7’s clause (a) of subsection (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
P Madhavan Nair vs K Ravindran Unni, AIR 1993 Karn 203
If a civil court had made an order under the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, and further changes are desired, they must be made by the civil court itself. In this situation, the Guardians and Wards Act of 1890 does not give the Family Court the authority to consider petitions.
Javeeda Sherieff vs Mohd Hafeez, II (1993) DMC (Kant.) 157
The primary objective of granting authority to the Family Court for matters specified in section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is to eliminate the jurisdiction of civil courts once the Act takes effect. It has been established that as per section 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, all ongoing processes should be considered as pending cases and automatically transferred under the statutory framework.
MP Gangadharan and Another vs State of Kerala and Others, 2007 (1) ALD 25 (SC)
The family counsellors must have a space of their own in Family Court. There must be enough room for conciliation.
C Rajeswari Devi vs Sri Karegowda, II (2001) DMC (Kant.) 158
It was decided that a Family Court order granting an unconstitutional temporary relief may be subject to judicial review.
Major Raja P Singh vs Surendra Kumari, I (1993) DMC (Raj.) 285
In the ordinary course of law, the decision in such a case would take years to achieve the finality of the matter if the acceptance or rejection of an amendment application would be regarded as the case determined for this act and is appealable. As a result, accepting or rejecting an amendment was considered an interim ruling for which section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, did not provide for an appeal.
Komal S Padukone vs Principal Judge, Family Court, AIR 1999 Bang. 427
The Family Court should not deny the opposite side’s request to be represented by counsel if one side has been granted permission.
Moideen Bava Manchesra Banot vs Shahida, AIR 2006 Ker. 362
The impugned order, which denied the appellant’s request for permission to hire counsel, was an interlocutory order as defined by section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. Hence, no appeal could be filed by section 19 of the Act.
Manohar Lal Agarwal vs Santosh and Others, II (1993) DMC (Raj.) 202
To better comprehend the nature of the conflict and to attempt to mediate between the parties, the judge of a Family Court is permitted to call witnesses, even grown children. It is improper for the Family Court judge to entrust every submission to the parties, who may not be familiar with the court process.
Thomas vs Lucy, II (1994) DMC (Kant) 49
Although not formal procedures, accusations of adultery and divorce are serious affairs with important implications. Affidavit evidence is not acceptable in certain situations in place of parole proof. After the Family Court ruled, the case was returned to it.
Vishwas Narahari Sahastrabudhe vs Varda Vishwas Sahastrabudhe, AIR 2006 Bom. 286
As per section 17 of The Family Courts Act, 1984, the expression “judgment” would also include a decree.
Jose Kutty Joseph vs Aniamma Thomas, AIR 2006 Ker. 337
When a civil court order was made before the passing of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the order must be carried out by CPC Order 21 Rule 10 by the court that made the order.
Prem Singh vs Smt. Madhu Bala, 1995 AIHC 6149 Raj
It was decided that the revision in question should have been submitted under section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, when a revision petition was filed under section 397 CrPC against the Family Court’s order.
Geeta Krishnaraj Merchant vs Krishnaraj S Merchant, II (1993) DMC (Bom.) 515
When the wife’s plea to have the ex-parte decree set aside would be unsuccessful as a result of the appeal being dismissed, the withdrawal of the appeal was permitted to avoid such unfavourable outcomes.
Sections 21 to 23
Saleem Advocate Bar Association vs UOI, AIR 2005 SC 3353
It was decided that the ADR Rules should be used in addition to the Family Courts Act’s sections 21 to 23 and 10 Rules for Family Court cases referred to ADR under section 89 CPC (Inserted by Act 46 of 1999, sec 7 (w.e.f. 1-7-2002). Earlier section 89 relating to arbitration was repealed by Act 10 of 1940, sec 49 and Sch II).
Additionally, section 89 of CPC was added to attempt and ensure that not every matter brought in court must be adjudicated by the court itself. It is now essential that recourse be taken to an alternative dispute resolution mechanism to get a dispute between the parties at an early date, considering the rules, delays, and restricted number of Judges accessible.
- Cases Related to Muslim Women Protection of Rights on Divorce Act - 1st March 2024
- Important Legal Abbreviations Related to Case Laws - 5th February 2024
- An Overview of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 - 24th January 2024