Ganesan Judge: Sir , 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 amounts to or attempts to invade the privacy of the people who comes to family courts for reliefs under their personal law . As india is predominantly populated with hindu majoritarian secular country by law established, even the right royal way of entry of advocates to prosecute and defend a matter is restricted rather prohibited and the lawyer can appear only to assist the court as the friend of the court and not as lawyer of either side as the family courts Act given such. omelets discretion to the presiding officer of the family courts in family court area and the other courts such safeguards is not available and it is still an anomaly persisting in a family court area and a non- family court area . Due this anomaly, from the decision of family fort appeal lies to high court to be dealt by two judge bench and where as if the same power is exercised by a sub judge in a non family court area , the appeal would lie only the district court . 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 . The restricted entry has been more or less made as a wind and the family courts are the place flooded with lawyers

[16/05, 19:12] Ganesan Judge: Sir , 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 amounts to or attempts to invade the privacy of the people who comes to family courts for reliefs under their personal law . As india is predominantly populated with hindu majoritarian secular country by law established, even the right royal way of entry of advocates to prosecute and defend a matter is restricted rather prohibited and the lawyer can appear only to assist the court as the friend of the court and not as lawyer of either side as the family courts Act given such. omelets discretion to the presiding officer of the family courts in family court area and the other courts such safeguards is not available and it is still an anomaly persisting in a family court area and a non- family court area . Due this anomaly, from the decision of family fort appeal lies to high court to be dealt by two judge bench and where as if the same power is exercised by a sub judge in a non family court area , the appeal would lie only the district court .
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 . The restricted entry has been more or less made as a wind and the family courts are the place flooded with lawyers
In one angle , it appears to be un necessary and in another angle it would appear as necessary . As the family courts are as a matter of routine allowing almost all the application seeking the entry of lawyers , the particular restriction is by practice made as useless and its now gotten the status of used tissue and however which consumes lot of human energy both on side of the bench and the bar .
Another controversy is that most of the cases are surfacing from majoritarian hindus who married under the hindu sastric way or under the suyamariyathsi way ( in Tamil nadu only ) , the family court judges are not been abreast of the so many restrictions embodies under section 23 of Hindi Marriage Act 1955 as the two invocation lines clearly spell out that unlike the other civil courts , no courts dealing with any matrimonial matters under HMA, 1955 could straight away as of right grant exparte dismissal or exparte decree as the words in section23 of HMA,1955 clearly spell out “ any relief under this Act , whether defended or not “ gives an embargo or a hump to the courts dealing with any relief under HMA, 1955 , only on the simplistic reason dismiss a petition as the petitioner has not present , or absent on an appointed day ; equally the hump created extracted above also prohibit passing of an exparte decree on the simple reason that the respondent is absent and not defending the matter . In other words , all orders must be pronounced subject to all the conditionslities embodied under section 23 of HMA,1955 . This article is not meant that the courts dealing with HMA, 1955 should not dismiss for default or grant exparte decree . The real intent of this small write up is that both nsr and bench should read and re read section 23 of HMA, 1955 and realise to understand all compartmentalised restriction to grant or refuse relief under the said Act . It is just like the repealed old section 20 of Sprecific Relief Act , 1963 , which says that it is not just lawful for the courts to decree the suit for specific performance just because it is lawful for the courts so to do and in a deserving cases , courts could on the elements of extra hardship , inequity and unfair advantage withhold primary relief and grant ancillary relief and that also to be exercised in a compartmentalised and circumspect manner capable of being corrected by the appellate courts . Section 23 of HMA, is also one such regulatory provision that courts should not act as it it is an ordinary civil courts
If section 23 of HMA 1955 is properly understood by the judges who are dealing with matrimonial matters under HMA, 1955 , in necessary passing of dismissal for default and passing indiscriminate exparte decree and subsequent filing of period to set aside the dismissal orders and exparte decrees under chapter IX of CPC could be avoided .
This article is published expecting that the Honble High court would educate both lawyers and the judges to understand section 23 of HMA, 1955 syllable by syllable thread bare to avoid passing of mindless exparte orders .
[16/05, 19:14] sekarreporter1: 👍