Ganesan Judge – Comments on Family Courts Act, 1984* _Sekar Reporter post – key legal points raised_ *1. Core arguments made by Judge Ganesan* *A. Publication ban – privacy protection* 1. _“The very mandate of the Family Court Act 1984 is that

[16/05, 19:36] sekarreporter1: [16/05, 19:35] sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/UgkxOgcHwUAaUCq-CXYR9iqxFVqOBTaZdZ8d?si=DSCJWspF7UniUei3
[16/05, 19:35] sekarreporter1: *Ganesan Judge – Comments on Family Courts Act, 1984*
_Sekar Reporter post – key legal points raised_

*1. Core arguments made by Judge Ganesan*

*A. Publication ban – privacy protection*
1. _“The very mandate of the Family Court Act 1984 is that it strictly prohibits the very publication of the family court proceeding in any website or portals of the family court as it would amount to or attempts to invade the privacy of the people who come to family courts for reliefs under their personal law.”_
2. *Rationale*: Family disputes involve personal/sensitive matters. India is a _“Hindu majoritarian secular country by law established”_ – privacy of matrimonial/personal law litigants must be protected.

*B. Restricted entry of lawyers – Section 13 FCA*
1. _“Even the right royal way of entry of advocates to prosecute and defend a matter is restricted rather prohibited.”_
2. *Law*: _Section 13, Family Courts Act 1984_ – _“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”_.
3. *Role of lawyer*: Can appear _“only to assist the court as the friend of the court and not as lawyer of either side”_.
4. *Discretion*: _“Given such discretion to the presiding officer of the family courts”_. Court may allow legal expert as _amicus curiae_ _“if it considers it necessary in the interest of justice”_.

*C. Anomaly: Family Court vs Non-Family Court areas*
1. *Appeal hierarchy difference*:
– _Family Court order_ → Appeal lies to _High Court_ before 2-judge bench under _Sec 19(1) FCA_.
– _Same matrimonial case before Sub-Judge in non-Family Court area_ → Appeal lies only to _District Court_.
2. _“Due this anomaly… safeguards is not available and it is still an anomaly persisting”_.

*D. Reality vs Law – lawyers flood Family Courts*
1. _“Though the entry of lawyers are completely under the rigorous filtering mechanism of the family court judges, no judge in family court used to refuse the petition filed by the parties seeking to nominate and appoint counsel either to prosecute or defend a matter before family courts.”_
2. _“The restricted entry has been more or less made as a wind and the family courts are the place flooded with lawyers.”_

*2. Legal position – Section 13 upheld*
Madras HC _Vijaya Vaishnavi Sriram v UOI, Mar 5, 2025_ dismissed plea challenging Sec 13:
1. *No absolute bar*: Sec 13 + Family Courts (Procedure) Rules 1996 _“allows representation in deserving cases, with courts retaining discretion”_.
2. *Precedents*: Bombay HC _Lata v UOI 1993_, Rajasthan HC _Sarala Sharma 2002_, Allahabad HC _Bansidhar v Seema 1992_ – all upheld Sec 13. _“No party can claim as a matter of right to be represented through lawyer”_ except Art 22(1).
3. *Object*: Family Courts meant for _“speedy settlement of family disputes”_ with conciliatory approach. Lawyer’s adversarial role restricted.

*3. Other key FCA provisions mentioned*
1. *Sec 7*: Exclusive jurisdiction of Family Courts over matrimonial, guardianship, custody matters. Civil Court jurisdiction excluded.
2. *Sec 8*: Bars other courts once Family Court established in area.
3. *Sec 16*: Evidence of formal character on affidavit allowed.
4. *Sec 19*: Appeals from Family Court to HC – heard by 2-judge bench.

*4. Madras HC guidance on lawyers in matrimonial cases*
_Times of India, Dec 2024_: HC urged Bar Council to frame guidelines:
1. Advocates _“should never misguide parties… should never give unprofessional advice to implicate persons not remotely connected”_.
2. _“Try to advise to go for amicable settlement… get help of qualified counsellor”_.
3. _“Inform client about legal consequences if they give false complaints”_.
4. _“Play neutral role… try best to resolve issues between husband’s family and wife’s family”_.

*Bottom line*: Judge Ganesan flags 3 issues:
1. *Privacy*: FCA 1984 bars publication of proceedings to protect litigants.
2. *Lawyers*: Sec 13 restricts entry – only as _amicus_ with court permission, but in practice courts routinely allow lawyers.
3. *Anomaly*: Appeals from Family Court go to HC, but same case before Sub-Judge goes to District Court.

The Act’s intent was informal, conciliatory forum without lawyer-dominated adversarial process, but ground reality is _“flooded with lawyers”_ despite _“rigorous filtering”_.

Want the full text of Section 13 or Madras HC’s 2025 judgment upholding it?
[16/05, 19:36] sekarreporter1: [16/05, 19:35] sekarreporter1: http://youtube.com/post/UgkxOgcHwUAaUCq-CXYR9iqxFVqOBTaZdZ8d?si=DSCJWspF7UniUei3
[16/05, 19:35] sekarreporter1: *Ganesan Judge – Comments on Family Courts Act, 1984*
_Sekar Reporter post – key legal points raised_

*1. Core arguments made by Judge Ganesan*

*A. Publication ban – privacy protection*
1. _“The very mandate of the Family Court Act 1984 is that it strictly prohibits the very publication of the family court proceeding in any website or portals of the family court as it would amount to or attempts to invade the privacy of the people who come to family courts for reliefs under their personal law.”_
2. *Rationale*: Family disputes involve personal/sensitive matters. India is a _“Hindu majoritarian secular country by law established”_ – privacy of matrimonial/personal law litigants must be protected.

*B. Restricted entry of lawyers – Section 13 FCA*
1. _“Even the right royal way of entry of advocates to prosecute and defend a matter is restricted rather prohibited.”_
2. *Law*: _Section 13, Family Courts Act 1984_ – _“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”_.
3. *Role of lawyer*: Can appear _“only to assist the court as the friend of the court and not as lawyer of either side”_.
4. *Discretion*: _“Given such discretion to the presiding officer of the family courts”_. Court may allow legal expert as _amicus curiae_ _“if it considers it necessary in the interest of justice”_.

*C. Anomaly: Family Court vs Non-Family Court areas*
1. *Appeal hierarchy difference*:
– _Family Court order_ → Appeal lies to _High Court_ before 2-judge bench under _Sec 19(1) FCA_.
– _Same matrimonial case before Sub-Judge in non-Family Court area_ → Appeal lies only to _District Court_.
2. _“Due this anomaly… safeguards is not available and it is still an anomaly persisting”_.

*D. Reality vs Law – lawyers flood Family Courts*
1. _“Though the entry of lawyers are completely under the rigorous filtering mechanism of the family court judges, no judge in family court used to refuse the petition filed by the parties seeking to nominate and appoint counsel either to prosecute or defend a matter before family courts.”_
2. _“The restricted entry has been more or less made as a wind and the family courts are the place flooded with lawyers.”_

*2. Legal position – Section 13 upheld*
Madras HC _Vijaya Vaishnavi Sriram v UOI, Mar 5, 2025_ dismissed plea challenging Sec 13:
1. *No absolute bar*: Sec 13 + Family Courts (Procedure) Rules 1996 _“allows representation in deserving cases, with courts retaining discretion”_.
2. *Precedents*: Bombay HC _Lata v UOI 1993_, Rajasthan HC _Sarala Sharma 2002_, Allahabad HC _Bansidhar v Seema 1992_ – all upheld Sec 13. _“No party can claim as a matter of right to be represented through lawyer”_ except Art 22(1).
3. *Object*: Family Courts meant for _“speedy settlement of family disputes”_ with conciliatory approach. Lawyer’s adversarial role restricted.

*3. Other key FCA provisions mentioned*
1. *Sec 7*: Exclusive jurisdiction of Family Courts over matrimonial, guardianship, custody matters. Civil Court jurisdiction excluded.
2. *Sec 8*: Bars other courts once Family Court established in area.
3. *Sec 16*: Evidence of formal character on affidavit allowed.
4. *Sec 19*: Appeals from Family Court to HC – heard by 2-judge bench.

*4. Madras HC guidance on lawyers in matrimonial cases*
_Times of India, Dec 2024_: HC urged Bar Council to frame guidelines:
1. Advocates _“should never misguide parties… should never give unprofessional advice to implicate persons not remotely connected”_.
2. _“Try to advise to go for amicable settlement… get help of qualified counsellor”_.
3. _“Inform client about legal consequences if they give false complaints”_.
4. _“Play neutral role… try best to resolve issues between husband’s family and wife’s family”_.

*Bottom line*: Judge Ganesan flags 3 issues:
1. *Privacy*: FCA 1984 bars publication of proceedings to protect litigants.
2. *Lawyers*: Sec 13 restricts entry – only as _amicus_ with court permission, but in practice courts routinely allow lawyers.
3. *Anomaly*: Appeals from Family Court go to HC, but same case before Sub-Judge goes to District Court.

The Act’s intent was informal, conciliatory forum without lawyer-dominated adversarial process, but ground reality is _“flooded with lawyers”_ despite _“rigorous filtering”_.

Want the full text of Section 13 or Madras HC’s 2025 judgment upholding it?
[16/05, 19:59] sekarreporter1: