V.K.GUPTA,.J. - (1.) THROUGH the medium of this petition by way of Public Interest Litigation, filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is a practicing Advocate of this Court, as also in the District Courts, has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding respondents 3 to 6, who are the Principal Judges/Presiding Officers of Family Courts constituted under the Family Courts Act, 1984, at Ranchi, Jamshedpur, Dhanbad and Hazaribagh, to allow the parties to litigation before these Courts to be represented by counsel of their choice.
(2.) THE point involved in this petition is very simple and uncomplicated, Family Courts Act, 1984, was enacted to provide for the establishment of Family Courts by making it obligatory on the part of the State Governments to set up a Family Court in every city or town with a population of more than one Million people. The object of the Act was to ensure speedy settlement of family disputes between the contesting parties relating to marriages and other matrimonial affairs. The ostensible purpose of the enactment was to resolve the disputes in the shortest possible time. The Family Courts constituted under Section 3 of the Act were conferred special and exclusive jurisdictions to deal with almost all the matters relating to matrimonial disputes including disputes concerning the property of the spouses, the legitimacy and the guardianship of the children and the custody of the minor and also grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(3.) SECTION 9 of the Act casts a duty upon the Family Courts to make an earnest endeavor in every suit or proceeding pending before such Courts in the first instance with a view to assist and persuade the parties in arriving at a settlement in respect of the subject matter of the suit or proceeding and if at any stage of such suits or proceedings, it would appear to a Family Court that there was a reasonable possibility of settlement being arrived at between the parties, it might adjourn the proceedings for a reasonable period to enable the parties to actually effect and arrive at such a settlement. For ready reference, Section 9 of the Family Courts Act 1984, is reproduced hereinbelow which reads thus : - - "9. Duty of Family Court to make effort for settlement - -(1) In every suit or proceeding, endeavour shall be made by the Family Court in the first instance, where it is possible to do so consistent with the nature and circumstances of the case, to assist and persuade the parties in arriving at a settlement in respect of the subject matter of the suit or proceeding and for this purpose a Family Court may, subject to any rules made by the High Court, following such procedure as it may deem fit. (2) If, in any suit or proceeding, at any stage, it appears to the Family Court that there is a reasonable possibility of a settlement between the parties, the Family Court may adjourn the proceedings for such period as it thinks fit to enable attempts to be made to effect such a settlement; (3) The power conferred by Sub -section (2) shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any, other power of the Family Court to adjourn the proceedings. " 5. In this case we are concerned with Section 13 of the Act which lays down that no party to a suit or proceeding before a Family Court shall be entitled as of right to be represented by legal practitioners. Section 13 reads thus : - - "13. Right to legal representation. - -Notwithstanding anything contained in any law no party to a suit or proceeding before a Family Court shall be entitled, as of right to be represented by a legal practitioner; Provided that if the Family Court considers It necessary in the interest of justice, it may seek the assistance of a legal expert as amicus curiac.";