DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

RESEARCH PAPER TITLE

CONSTITUTION AND FUNCTION OF FAMILY COURT, ANALYSIS THE CASE

SUBJECT- FAMILY LAW – I

Submitted To: -

PROF. P. VARA LAKSHMI MA’AM

Submitted by: -

MUKUL DHIRAN

19LLB120
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It is a great pleasure to present this research project to Prof. Vara lakshmi ma’am, without
whose guidance this research paper would not have been successfully completed. Next, I
would like to sincerely thank my seniors, whose advice and encouragement helped me during
the entire tenure of creating the research paper. Finally, I would like to express my heartfelt
gratitude to my parents and friends who, at every possible step, guided me and supported me
in the difficult situation.
 ABSTRACT

The Family Courts Act, 1984, was part of the advancement of women's legal reforms. The
Act was intended to facilitate satisfactory settlement of family disputes through a forum
expected to function expeditiously in a just manner and with an approach ensuring full
welfare of society and dignity of women, due to the building pressure from different
organisations lobbying for the welfare of women across the world. Over the years, the
existence of gender-biased laws and patriarchal social customs has denied Indian women
justice and basic human rights.

While such courts have been developed and are operating in other states, the establishment of
a family court in the capital is a significant development and a necessary step to take. The
main goal behind the creation of these courts was to eliminate family cases from the
oppressive environment of traditional courts and ensure that a supportive atmosphere is set up
to deal with issues such as marriage, divorce, alimony, child custody, etc.
 SYNOPSIS

OBJECTIVE
● The purpose of the study is to understand the true meaning and concept of family
court and how it works.
● The objective of the research is also to analyze the various cases and judgement
pertaining to the family court.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY

LITERATURE REVIEW
The research has taken information from various books, web sources, articles & cases law.
Some of the sources for cases study – scconline, heinonline, westlaw, manupatra etc.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The nature of this study is exploratory and analytical. Doctrinal method of research used in
the research paper. This research has used secondary sources of information. The secondary
sources of information are used for doctrinal research, articles, Organizational Databases are
used to determine the answers of the research question.
 ESTABLISHMENT OF FAMILY COURT
The massive pressure from many women's organizations, welfare groups and individuals to
create special courts in order to provide a venue for the rapid resolution of family-related
disputes was the immediate reason for creating family courts. Focus was focused on a non-
adversarial method of resolving family disputes and fostering conciliation and ensuring rapid
resolution of marriage and family disputes.

In 1975, the Committee on the Status of Women proposed that all 'family' problems should
be discussed separately. The Law Commission also emphasized in its 59th report (1974) that
it had to deal with family conflicts. “Both the 59th Report of the Law Commission (1974)
and the Committee on the Status of Women (1975) were of the opinion that it was
appropriate to deal with family disputes differently from ordinary civil proceedings and the
opinion of the Law Commission also proposed that the creation of family courts by States
should take place and the appointment of judicial officers should be based on experience to
support society and the Code of Civil Procedure was revised in 1976 to follow a special
procedure for family-related disputes”. However, when many courts were still concerned
with family disputes as well as ordinary civil cases, the revised law did not serve the purpose.
Several NGOs, women's associations and individuals have pressurised government to provide
the special courts for speedy resolution in disputes related to the family. Hence, the Family
Courts Act was passed in 1984.

The Fifty-ninth Report of the Law Commission (1974) and the Committee on the Status of
Women (1975) both found that it was necessary to deal with family disputes in a different
manner than with ordinary civil proceedings. It was also suggested in the opinion of the Law
Commission that the establishment of family courts by States should take place and that the
selection of judicial officers should be based on socially supportive experience. In 1976, the
Code of Civil Procedure was amended to follow a particular procedure for family-related
conflicts. However, the revised legislation did not serve that function because many courts
were already dealing with family disputes as well as with ordinary civil cases. Several NGOs,
women's associations and individuals have urged the government to provide for timely
resolution of family-related conflicts by special courts. Hence, in 1984, the Family Courts
Act was passed.

The need to create family courts in India was first highlighted by the Late Smt. After her trip
from China, where she had occasion to research the work of Family Courts, Durgabhai
Deshmukh, the renowned social worker from Maharashtra around 1953, she discussed the
subject with Justice Bhagla and Justice Gajendra Gadkar when she returned. A plan to set up
Family Courts in India for Prime Minister Pt. Nehru Jawaharlal was then made after a debate,
but it did not go through. In the 1970's, the question about creating a special court for family
disputes was posed again and a panel was set up to determine the women's status in India.
This committee's report, entitled “Towards Equality,” published in 1974, proposed that all
family matters be resolved by courts expressly set up for this purpose. In its 59th report,
released in 1974, the Law Commission of India introduced amendments to the Code of Civil
Procedure and proposed the establishment of family courts. The Civil Procedure Code was
revised in 1976 according to these proposals and a new clause, i.e., order 32-A, was added to
provide for the establishment of a separate forum for family affairs.

In the case of K.A. Abdul Jaleel v. T.A. Shahida 1, V.N. Khare CJ, S.B. Sinha J and Dr A.R.
Lakshmanan J stated "The rationale for the passage of the Family Courts Act was to establish
a court to deal with family cases by pursuing a distinct approach than that adopted in ordinary
civil proceedings."

The purpose behind the implementation was to build opportunities for women's friendly
dispute resolution, to ensure that vital women's survival rights are not subsumed under
technicalities, and legal argon Court should be away from civil and criminal courts' formal
frameworks. In its appearance, the current litigation should be less formidable & more open
to women from oppressed sections. There must be a deliberate change away from
conventional attorneys and an increased focus on counsellors to assist the parties to the
conflicts in finding a mutually amicable settlement in order to accomplish this.

FAMILY COURT

Family courts are developed to interact with family disputes, such as divorce or custody of
children. One of the family court's key purposes is to address legal disputes that may arise in
families. Each state differs in how the family court works. Therefore, to learn more about
how it operates, it is best to look at the nearest family court in the area.

“The primary goal of the Family Courts is to facilitate the smooth and efficient disposition of
family-related litigation but there are some concerns that are a matter of concern when it
comes to the operation of these courts, like every other system”. One dilemma like this is that

1
[2003] DMC 765 SC
of continuity. “In the family courts of Tamil Nadu, for example, counselors are transferred
every three months and Therefore, if cases extend over a period of time that is longer than
this, the woman or the aggrieved party must adapt with new counselors and repeatedly retell
their tale”.

The Family Courts are free to create their own rules of procedure, and the rules thus framed
bypass the rules of procedure contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure until a Family
Court does so. The Code of Civil Procedure was, in fact, revised to serve the reason behind
the creation of the Family Courts.

The court is focused on the resolution of conflicts by mediation and conciliation. This
guarantees that an agreement between the sides solves the matter and eliminates the
likelihood of any further confrontation. The goal is to give common consensus priority over
the normal adjudication process. In short, the aim of these courts is to establish a supportive
environment where family disputes are resolved amicably. The cases are kept away from a
structured legal scheme's trappings.

Types of Family Court Cases

Most family court cases include some sort of connection between two or more parties, as well
as the treatment and care of children and adults who are unable to take care of themselves.
The cases heard by the courts of family law differ widely, but the most common are the
dissolution of a marriage or marital relationship and custody of children. Other types of cases
involving family court revolve around:
 Child custody and visitation
 Child support
 Spousal Support
 Adoption
 Guardianship
 Domestic violence
 Divorce
 Distribution of marital property2

2
https://legaldictionary.net/family-court/
 PROVISION AND OBJECTIVES OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT
Splitting matrimonial litigation from general civil and criminal courts to courts with special
experience in matrimonial law and conflict resolution was the main purpose of seeking the
creation of family courts. These courts were intended to make the litigation process less
formal and daunting, implement the standard of swift justice and immediate redress, and
promote conciliation and settlements.

The Preamble of this Act provides for “an Act to provide for the establishment of family
courts with a view to promoting conciliation and ensuring the speedy settlement of marriage
and family disputes and related matters.”3

With various features, such as Preliminary, Family Courts, Jurisdiction, Process, Appeals and
Amendments, and Miscellaneous, this Act has 6 chapters. Section 3 of the Act empowers the
Government of the State, after consultation with the High Court, to create a family court for
each area of the State comprising a city or town with a population exceeding one million. The
qualifications for the appointment of a family court judge are the same as those for the
appointment of a district court judge requiring seven years of judicial office experience or
seven years of advocacy practice. The Central Government is empowered to make legislation
that recommend any more qualifications. The Central Government has no huge part to play in
the regulation of this Act, aside from prescribing the qualification of the Judges of Family
Courts. Various High Courts have laid down various codes of practice. However, a need has
been felt for a uniform set of rules.

The Act provides that individuals appointed to family courts shall be committed, by
conciliation and therapy, to the need to protect and maintain the institution of marriage and to
facilitate the resolution of disputes. The appointment of women as family court judges will
also be given priority. Section 5 authorizes Government, in the exercise of its duties, to
affiliate institutions engaged in the promotion of the welfare of families, in particular women
and children, or employed in the area of social welfare, to be affiliated with the Family
Courts.

Section 7 provides on all family courts, in suits and proceedings of the kind referred to in the
clarification of section 7(1) of the Act, the power and jurisdiction exercisable by any District
Court or subordinate civil court.

3
Preamble of the Family Courts Act 1984
In deciding cases before it, Section 9 of Chapter IV of the Act deals with the procedure of the
family court. These courts have been made responsible for ensuring that the parties are
supported and persuaded to negotiate a settlement and have been allowed, for that reason, to
obey the process laid down by the High Court by means of rules to be followed by it. If a
settlement between the parties is possible and there is some delay in arriving at such a
settlement, the family court is empowered to suspend the trial before the settlement is
reached. The Act grants each of the High Courts the authority to make laws for the procedure
to be followed in settlements and other issues by the family courts.

The Act was intended to promote the satisfactory settlement of family disputes through a
forum, and this forum was expected to function expeditiously, in a reasonable manner and
with an approach that would ensure full social welfare and women's dignity.

Nonetheless, the Act does not describe "family." Matters with significant economic
implications, such as testamentary matters, concerning the family are not under the
jurisdiction of family courts. The family courts are responsible only for matters affecting
women and children - divorce, maintenance, adoption, etc.

Constitutional and criminal authority under one roof was both brought under the Act. This
was seen as a constructive step for centralizing all women's litigation. Second, it was the very
existence of criminal courts that allowed the faster disposition of requests to a civil court.
Third, there was a sense of seriousness and coercion associated with a criminal court that
would operate in favour of a woman.

JUDICIARY ON THE FAMILY COURTS

In the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh V. Meena4, the Supreme Court held that the Family
Court was set up to follow and promote the conciliation process and to deal with family
conflicts quickly and expeditiously, further highlighting the role of the Family Court Judge.

“The Family Judge is expected to sensitive to the issues, or he is dealing with extremely
delicate and sensitive issues pertaining to the marriage and issues ancillary thereto. When we
say this, we do not mean that Family Courts should show undue haste or impatience, but
there is a situation. A Family Courts Judge should remember that the procrastination is the
greatest assassin of tis before it. It not only gives rise to more family problems but also
gradually builds unthinkable and everestine bitterness. It leads to the cold refrigeration of the

4
AIR 2014 SC 2875
hidden feelings, if still left. The delineation of the list by the Family Judge must reveal the
awareness and balance. Dilatory tactics by any of the parties has to be sternly dealt with, for
the Family Court Judge has to be alive to the fact that the tis before him pertains to emotional
fragmentation and delay can feed it to grow. We hope and trust that the Family Court Judges
shall remain alert to this and decide the matters as expeditiously as possible keeping in view
the objects and reasons this and decide the matters as expeditiously as possible keeping in
view the objects and reasons of the Act and the scheme of various provisions pertaining to
grant of maintenance, divorce, custody of child, property disputes, etc.”

“In the case of K. Srinivas Rao vs D.A. Deepa.5 The Supreme Court ruled that it must be
referred to the mediation centres when the cases are heard by the Family Court. Matrimonial
disputes, particularly those relating to child custody, maintenance, etc, are pre-eminently fit
for mediation and Section 9 of the Family Courts Act allows the Family Court to make
attempts to resolve marital disputes and counsellors are supported in these efforts by Family
Courts”. The Family Court should guide the parties to mediation centres, where qualified
mediators are assigned to mediate between the parties, even if the counsellors fail in their
efforts.

Furthermore, the courts in this case have given guidelines for the courts concerned with
marriage issues as follows:

 The Family Courts “shall make all efforts to resolve marital disputes through
mediation” in compliance with Section 96 of the Family Courts Act. And if a
deficiency report is submitted by the counsellors, the Family Court shall refer the
matter to the Mediation Centre, with the consent of the parties. In such a case,
however, the Family Courts shall set a fair time limit for the Mediation Centre to
complete the mediation process, as the Family Court may otherwise be delayed in
resolving the disputes. In a given case, the Family Court, at its discretion, will still
extend the time limit if there is a good opportunity for settlement.
 The Criminal Courts concerned with the grievance under section 498-A of the Indian
Penal Code should refer the parties to the Mediation Centre at any point and
particularly before they take up the complaint for a hearing if they feel that there are
elements of settlement and both parties are willing. However, they should take care to

5
AIR 2013 SC 2176 C
6
Section 9 of the Family Courts Act 1984
 see that the stringency, purpose and usefulness of Section 498-A in this exercise or
not to grant bail is not in any way limited by that direction. It would be for the court
concerned to figure out the modalities that take the facts of each case into account.
 All Mediation Centres must establish pre-litigation desks/clinics, give them
widespread attention, and make attempts at the pre-litigation level to resolve
marriage disputes.

In the case of Jagrika Debata V. Satyanarayan Debata 7; the Orissa High Court helps to
simplify the rules of evidence and procedure in order to enable a Family Court to deal
efficiently with a dispute, one of the aims of the enactment of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
Section 14 of the Family Court provides, as was pointed out in the impugned judgement, that
a Family Court can receive as evidence any article, argument, document, information or
matter which, in its view, may enable it to deal effectively with a dispute, whether or not the
same is otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, the
evaluation by the Family Court of proof is not limited to the principles of significance or
admissibility laid down in the Indian Evidence Act.

In case of K. A. Abdul Jaleel V. T.A. Shaluda8; The court ruled that it had jurisdiction under
section 7 of the Family Courts Act of 1984 to decide a dispute over property asserted by a
divorced wife and that the Family Courts Act was enacted to provide for the establishment of
Family Courts with a view to fostering conciliation and ensuring speedy resolution of
marriage and family conflicts and co-affairs. From an analysis of the statement of intent and
the reasons, it appears that the aforementioned Act intends, inter alia, to provide solely within
the jurisdiction of the Family Courts a matter relating to the property of the spouses or either
of them. Section 7 of the Act lays down the jurisdiction of the Family Courts with regard to
the suits and proceedings referred to in the following explanation. Section 7 refers to ‘a
lawsuit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with regard to the property of the
parties or of any of them.’ In this case, it was stated that it is now a well-established principle
of law that a court's authority, created in particular to resolve conflicts of such kinds, should
be perceived liberally.

In case of Balwinder Kaur V Hardeep Singh9; the court ruled that “the concentration is on
conciliation and the achievement of socially desirable results and the elimination of

7
AIR 2010 Ori 58
8
AIR 2003 SC 2525
9
AIR 1998 SC 764
adherence to rigid rules of procedure and evidence” for the purpose of resolving family
disputes.

MANISH TYAGI V. CAPTAIN DEEPAK KUMAR10

FACTS OF THE CASE

In this instance, on 17.11.1991, an army officer and a lawyer were married in accordance
with Hindu rites. They soon, however, fell apart, and began living separately from
31.12.1992 onwards. On the grounds of cruelty, the husband filed a petition for divorce
before the District Court of Gurgaon under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The
husband believed that his wife was arrogant, ill-mannered, quarrelsome and schizophrenic,
and that she had made a living hell out of his life. He claimed that, in front of his officers and
jawans, she screamed and made scenes and insulted him, made allegations of sodomy against
him and allegations of molesting her against his old and infirm father. In addition, the
husband also charged that the wife brought against him numerous criminal proceedings,
which resulted in either his acquittal, discharge, or being quashed, suggesting that they were
all fraudulent. Furthermore, she hurled disgusting insults on him and members of his family,
likened him to a barking dog, and had sexual assault. According to him, she has repeatedly
told him and his family that they will make the lives of the husband and his family
unbearable because she and her two uncles are advocates. The husband argued that his wife
had made false accusations to his superiors, hurting his Army career prospects. The husband
filed a claim for cruelty against his wife.

In distinct ways, the wife even made equally vile charges of dowry demand, sodomy, and
mental and physical abuse. In total, numerous accusations and charges were made against
each other. The Court made the best mediation attempts, but to no effect. On review of the
whole evidence, the trial court found that even though it was a case where marriage had been
broken, but as it remains under the law, the marriage could not be dissolved on the basis of
irretrievable breakup. The Court considered all parties to be at fault and did not issue a
divorce decree, since the husband could not show the wife's abuse in order to entitle him to a
divorce decree. On appeal by the husband against this, the sole judge noted that when she

10
AIR 2010 SC 1042
went to the extent of lodging a false FIR, and when she sought to humiliate him in front of his
superiors, the wife had violated all boundaries of dignity and crossed the 'Lakshman Rekha.'
By granting a decree of judicial separation under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the
Court found both parties to be at fault, and followed a middle course, so that the parties could
ponder their differences and re-unite for the welfare of their daughter. The husband followed
the one-judge order, but the wife went to the Punjab and Haryana High Court's Division
Bench to appeal. This Court also observed that, while the marriage had irretrievably broken
down, the marriage cannot be dissolved on that ground in the absence of such a constitutional
ground. On the basis of charges of brutality, the Division Bench continued and was persuaded
that the actions of the wife amounted to mental cruelty of the worst kind. Her accusations of
sodomy against her husband, lodging false FIRs and lawsuits against him, and making
allegations of molesting her against her infirm father-in-law, all amounted to brutality and
were definitely unacceptable behavior.

The Court held that the husband's supposed cruelty was proven, and thus, the single order of
the judge was set aside and the husband was given a divorce decree. The wife again went to
appeal against the order of the Division Bench, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and
came before the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT:

The Apex Court in its judgment stated that, “We are of the opinion that the High Court erred
in granting a decree of divorce to the husband. She had come in appeal before the Division
Bench complaining that the Appellate Court had wrongly granted the decree of judicial
separation even after concurring with the findings of the Trial Court that the husband had
failed to establish cruelty by the wife. Therefore even if the appeal had been dismissed, the
findings recorded by the Trial Court in her favour would have remained intact. The effect of
the order passed by the Division Bench is as if an appeal of the husband against the decree of
judicial separation has been allowed. Both the parties had failed to make out a case of divorce
against each other. The husband had accepted these findings. Therefore he was quite content
to wait for the statutory period to lapse before filing the petition for divorce, which he
actually did on 9.5.2002. On the basis of the proven facts the Trial Court was more inclined
to believe the wife, whereas the learned Single Judge of the High Court found both the parties
to be at fault. Hence the middle path of judicial separation had been accepted. Therefore, it
was not a case where it was necessary for the Division Bench to correct any glaring and
serious errors committed by the Court below which had resulted in miscarriage of justice. In
our opinion there was no compelling necessity, independently placed before the Division
Bench to justify reversal, of the decree of judicial separation. In such circumstances it was
wholly inappropriate for the Division of High Court to have granted a decree of divorce to the
husband”.

The Supreme Court in its judgment held that the Division Bench of the High Court had
committed an error in granting the decree of divorce, and thus, the Supreme Court set aside
the Division Bench’s order by restoring the single judge order of granting judicial separation.

K. SRINIVAS RAO VS D.A. DEEPA11

Facts - On the grounds of the mental cruelty caused to him by his wife, the husband filed a
petition with the supreme court to grant a divorce. The conflict began with a battle between
the elders of the family, in which the wife's family took her away from the wedding home.
The wife eventually lodged a lawsuit for the restoration of conjugal rights, after which the
husband submitted a petition for divorce. The purpose behind her actions was, according to
her, to compel her husband to embrace her again. This was led to a series of events such as
the wife filing a dowry complaint against the husband, the wife claiming that husband mother
asked her to sleep with the father of the husband, the husband beating his mother in law, the
brother of the wife assaulting her mother in law, etc. The family court found the conduct of
the wife as cruelty and dismissed the petition, while the High Court ruled that their acts could
not amount to cruelty because the wife and husband were not living under the same roof and
granted the husband 6 months in prison on the dowry charges. A petition was filed in the
Supreme Court by the husband.

Issues -

1. whether the wife’s actions amount to cruelty?

2. How could the parties have handled the present situation in a better way?

Apex Court's Order

1. The declarations made by the wife against the mother of the husband are sufficient to
cause the husband immense embarrassment and anguish. Although desperately being
11
(2013) 5 SCC 226
 with him, all the acts taken by the wife caused sufficient pain for the husband and his
family, which is obviously cruelty. Although brutality is not a ground for divorce,
separation for 10 years in the present case and this increased hostility between the
parties renders the irretrievable marriage breakdown a ground for divorce.

2. If appropriate instruction had been given to the woman, telling her that her actions
would not help her get her husband back, the problem would not have escalated to
such an extent. But it is not possible to blame just one party for marriage problems.
10-15% of the marriage cases that are referred for court-directed mediation are
resolved. If the parties in the present case had sought, at the beginning, to settle the
conflict themselves, things may not have been so ugly. For this, the court
recommended the mediation process. Where the parties might have used a neutral
person's support to better understand the conflict and have arrived at a friendly
settlement. The court referred to section 9 of the Family Courts Act and said that in
disputes where arbitration is necessary, mediation should be made compulsory.
Dowry cases can be forwarded for mediation as non-compoundable offences, but even
if parties wish to settle in these situations, they can certainly opt for this. The court
also directed the lower courts to create a pre-mediation assistance desk for better
implementation of the mediation process and mechanism.

BHUWAN MOHAN SINGH VERSUS MEENA & OTHERS12

Facts: As per Hindu rites and rituals, marriage between appellant/husband and
respondent/wife solemnized and was born in the wedlock baby. In such conditions, the
respondent had to leave the marital home and subsequently lodged an application under the
clause. 125 CrPC in Family Court and demanded Rs.6000/- for maintenance every month.
The Family Court provided the respondent and Rs.1500/- to the respondent-son with monthly
maintenance of Rs.2500/- and ordered the maintenance to be paid from the date of order. The
Respondent was unhappy with the order that the High Court filed a petition. “The
Respondent contended that maintenance should have been granted from date of application,
the Appellant alleged that maintenance to be paid from date of Application being dissatisfied,
Respondent preferred criminal revision before High Court alleging that maintenance should
be granted from date of filing of application, Appellant alleged that grant of maintenance
from date of filing of application by High Court illegal and unjustified, when number of

12
2014 SC 671 
adjournments sought by Respondent also, alleged that Respondent cannot take advantage of
her own wrong Respondent resisted that wife who was compelled to sustain herself and her
son with immense difficulty should not be allowed to suffer, since Family Court adjourned
matter sometimes on its own and enormous delay took place due to non-cooperation of
Appellant in proceedings”. As per Hindu rites and rituals, marriage between
appellant/husband and respondent/wife solemnized and was born in the wedlock baby. In
such conditions, the respondent had to leave the marital home and subsequently lodged an
application under the clause. 125 CrPC in Family Court and demanded Rs.6000/- for
maintenance every month. The Family Court provided the respondent and Rs.1500/- to the
respondent-son with monthly maintenance of Rs.2500/- and ordered the maintenance to be
paid from the date of order. The Respondent was unhappy with the order that the High Court
filed a petition.

Issue - Now the questions before the Supreme Court were:

1) Whether grant of maintenance from date of filing of application by High Court was legal
and justified?

2) Whether order recorded by High Court was sustainable?

Held- : In the current case, the evidence on record showed that, according to Section 125 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, there was an enormous pause in the disposal of the
proceedings in 1973 and that much of the time the husband had taken adjournments and often
the Court dealt with the matter showing absolute laxity. For a span of 9 years, the wife
supported herself as much as she could in that state. The circumstances required grant of
maintenance from the date of application and by so granting the High Court has not
committed any legal infirmity as the 2nd clause of section 125 CrPC provides that “Such
allowance shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the
application for maintenance”, the high court order sustained directions issued appeal
dismissed. The Supreme Court, therefore, concurs with the High Court's order. However, as
required by the learned counsel for the Respondent, the Supreme Court orders that he may be
permitted to pay the arrears along with the maintenance currently awarded in a staggered
manner. The Appellant's Learned Counsel did not object to such an agreement being made. In
view of the foregoing, this Court orders that the arrears shall be paid in a proportionate
manner within a period of three years from today, provided that the maintenance as set by the
learned Family Court Judge is paid on a monthly basis by the fifth of each succeeding month.
 CONCLUSION

The ordinary civil court judges, who used to take a long time to provide the parties with
relief, heard all family matters before 1984. The Family Courts Act was passed in 1984 and
came into effect. The primary aim of the act was to eliminate family and marital disputes
from the overburdened and conventional courts of law and introduce them to a simple court
where the court's process could also be understood by a layman. The main purpose of the act
was to follow a conciliatory strategy in order to facilitate a compromise between the parties
and to provide them with timely relief. I note that after evaluating the functionality of Family
Courts, the purpose for which Family Courts were created was not yet fulfilled. The system
has given rise to anger, frustration and dissatisfaction with its activity. The framework lacks
the trust of most justice seeking individuals over its ability to provide a fair and first forum
for family conflict management. Gender-justice, which was the underlying compulsion for
Family Court implementation, is definitely absent.
The Family Court needs to be empowered in the true sense of the word and the enforcement
process needs to be enhanced. The Family Court Judges should maintain a cooperative
atmosphere in dealing with matters relating to marriage, divorce, child custody, adoption, etc.
and should also mitigate the mechanism of the aggressive court process when interacting with
family relations.
Measures include simplification of procedures, quick settlement of disputes, a permanent
network of qualified advisers able to provide science and technical services, an informal court
setting, skilled social workers and the recruitment of gender-sensitized judges, uniformity of
laws, extension of family court services to all districts of India, reinforcement of gender-
sensitized judges, uniformity of laws. Gender justice should be a recruiting feature and a
judge should be expected to undergo a gender sensitization course/training before taking the
job, as a judge should be included. For the effective transformation of family courts in India,
all the guidelines and recommendations should be incorporated and implemented.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 The Family Courts Act of 1984

 Namita Singh Jamal (2009) “Have Family Courts lived up to expectations?" Mainstream,
Vol. XL Vol. No.12, March 7, 2009.

 AIR 2003 SC 2525

 Website of National Commission for Women.

 NCW- Working of the Family Courts in India.