CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BIHAR

FAMILY LAW : 1

[JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURES OF FAMILY COURTS]

(SESSION: 2023 – 2028)

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Mr. MANI PRATAP SIR ABHISHEK RAJ

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR CUSB2313125006

DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND GOVERNANCE B.A.LL.B(Hon’s)

SCHOOL OF LAW AND GOVERNANCE 4th SEMESTER

CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BIHAR SECTION-B

Page | 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special Thanks and gratitude to our faculty Mr. MANI PRATAP SIR
for providing me the chance for the topic of JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURES OF
FAMILY COURTS.

I am obliged to thank our faculty of the respective subject to provide me the necessary support
required while making this assignment and for mentoring me throughout the project. I get to
learn so many things from the case analysis while making this assignment and the whole
journey of completing this project was quite interesting that I was completely engrossed and
dived deeper to seek the information and knowledge related to the case.

I would not have been able to complete this assignment without the help of my friends,
colleagues and my family members, so I would like to express my gratitude towards them as
well.

THANK YOU

ABHISHEK RAJ

Page | 2
TABLE OF CONTENT

SERIAL TOPICS PAGE NO.

1. ABSTRACT 4

2. INTRODUCTION 5-6

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND 6

4. STATUS OF FAMILY COURTS 6-8

5. JURISDICTION OF FAMILY COURTS 8-13

6. PROCEDURES OF FAMILY COURT 13-16

7. CONCLUSION 17

8. BIBLIOGRAPHY 18

Page | 3
ABSTRACT

Family courts in India function as specialized judicial institutions designed to resolve disputes
related to family and matrimonial matters. Established with the intent of delivering swift and
effective justice in such cases, these courts are essential in safeguarding family relationships
within the legal framework of the country. The foundation for these courts was laid by the
Family Courts Act of 1984, which introduced a structured approach for dealing with issues
such as marriage, divorce, child custody, guardianship, maintenance, and other related
concerns. A key objective of family courts is to promote reconciliation and amicable
settlements, focusing on preserving the integrity of family bonds and prioritizing the welfare
of all parties involved, particularly children. Their functioning is underpinned by values such
as impartiality, fairness, and sensitivity to the emotional and social complexities that often
accompany family disputes. Unlike traditional courts, family courts adopt a comprehensive
approach that looks beyond legal arguments, incorporating psychological and social
dimensions into the resolution process. Mediation, counseling, and judicial guidance are
commonly used tools aimed at fostering mutual understanding and equitable resolutions. These
courts have broad jurisdiction over a wide range of family-related issues, accommodating the
diverse religious, cultural, and socio-economic realities that exist across India. In light of
changing social norms and ongoing legal reforms, it is crucial to examine how effectively
family courts are adapting to new challenges. This research paper seeks to explore the scope of
their jurisdiction and evaluate the procedures they follow to ensure that justice is inclusive, fair,
and efficient in a dynamic societal context.

KEYWORDS : jurisdiction, family courts, procedures.

Page | 4
INTRODUCTION

There is now a global consensus that disputes involving familial matters—such as divorce,
maintenance, alimony, child custody, education, financial support for children, and even
juvenile delinquency - should not be treated solely as legal contests with winners and losers.
Rather, these issues are increasingly being recognized as complex social and emotional
challenges that require therapeutic and constructive resolutions. In such cases, the legal process
must prioritize humane considerations over procedural formalities, with the aim of healing and
reconciliation. Resolving family conflicts necessitates specialized procedures that are distinct
from traditional litigation. These procedures are intended to support individuals in distress,
facilitate reconciliation where possible, and provide access to appropriate assistance.
Consequently, the conventional adversarial model of litigation, which is often rigid and formal,
must give way to more flexible, informal, and compassionate methods tailored to the sensitive
nature of family disputes. Currently, family matters are typically handled by district judges (or
subordinate courts where delegated), who are also responsible for adjudicating standard civil
and criminal cases. These include a wide range of issues such as contract disputes, tort claims,
and serious criminal offences like rape and murder. As a result, matrimonial and child-related
cases are often tried using the same adversarial approach. However, it is increasingly
recognized that family law has a distinct jurisprudence and cultural framework. The
adjudication of family disputes requires a different orientation—one that prioritizes preserving
family bonds, supporting the well-being of spouses and children, and avoiding punitive
outcomes wherever possible. The adversarial system, in this context, is often ill-suited as it
tends to generate ritualistic and ineffective responses to sensitive family issues. It offers little
to no legal safeguards for children, who are rarely represented and whose best interests may
remain inadequately assessed. Tragically, children frequently become entangled in parental
disputes, effectively becoming instruments or casualties of inter-parental conflict. The nature
of family litigation demands a more proactive, investigative, and inquisitorial approach from
the judiciary—one that goes beyond merely assessing the evidence and arguments presented
by the parties. Courts addressing such matters must engage with experts such as social workers,
legal professionals, child welfare officers, and mental health specialists to determine the most
appropriate course of action in the best interest of the family. The very concept of a family
court envisions a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary framework aimed at supporting families
in distress. It advocates for a court structure that not only aims to stabilize and preserve family
relationships but also facilitates the dissolution of irreparably broken marriages in a manner

Page | 5
that minimizes emotional harm and promotes fairness. The family court model, therefore,
emphasizes the integration of specialized agencies and professionals to ensure holistic and
humane resolution of familial disputes.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This study employs a doctrinal research to investigate the jurisdiction and procedure of family
courts in India. The doctrinal aspect involves a meticulous review and analysis of legal
principles, statutes, and judicial precedents governing family court proceedings, including the
Family Courts Act of 1984 and relevant case laws. This follows the constitutional and
legislative mandates to elucidate the procedural frameworks and interpretative nuances
influencing case outcomes in matters such as marriage, divorce, guardianship, custody, and
maintenance. It also contains internet resources.

RESEARCH QUESTION

1. JURISDICTION OF FAMILY COURT

[A] “To what extent does the current jurisdiction of family courts in India address the
complexities of modern family disputes?”

[B] “To what extent does the jurisdiction of family courts in India promote dispute resolution
and protect vulnerable members of the family?”

2. PROCEDURES FOLLOWED BY FAMILY COURTS

[A] How effective are the procedural mechanisms under the Family Courts Act, 1984 in
ensuring timely and accessible justice for litigants in family disputes?

STATUS OF FAMILY COURTS

Family courts play a vital role in the Indian judicial system by providing a dedicated forum for
resolving disputes related to marriage, divorce, child custody, guardianship, maintenance, and
similar matters. Their creation was made possible through the enactment of the Family Courts
Act, 1984, which was introduced with the aim of streamlining the process of civil litigation in
family-related cases and making the legal system more accessible and user-friendly for the
general public. The Act in section 2(d) defines the term ‘Family Court’ as a court established
under Section 3 of the Act.1 It is mandatory for the State government to establish a family court

1
The Family Courts Act, 1984, No. 66, Acts of Parliament, 1984 (India).

Page | 6
for every area including city or town where population exceeds one million while for rest of
the areas where population is less than one million, the establishment of family court is left at
the discretion of the state government.2 Appointment of judges of family courts is to be made
by the state governments with the concurrence of their High Courts. 3
A family court may
consist of one or more judges.4 Where there are more than one judge of a family court, each
judge is competent to exercise all or any of the powers of the family court.5 Where a family
court has more than one judge, the state government with the concurrence of the High Court
will designate one of the judges as the principal judge and any other judge as additional
principal judge.6 The retirement age of the judge of the family court, like that of the judge of
the High Courts is 62 years.7 The terms and conditions of service and emoluments of judges
are to be determined by the state governments in consulation with the High Courts.8

Section 4(3) of the Act lays down the qualifications of judges of the family court. A person who
has at least seven years' experience as a judicial officer or as a member of a tribunal or who has
held a post for that duration under the Central or a state government requiring special
knowledge of law, or who has been an advocate of a High Court (or two or more High Courts
in succession) for at least seven years may be appointed as judge of the family court. Other
qualifications may also be laid down by the Central Government in consultation with the Chief
Justice of India.9 Women will be given preference for the appointment as judges of the family
court.10 Section 4(4)(a) of the Family Courts Act emphasizes the need to appoint individuals
committed to preserving marriage and promoting child welfare, with experience in conciliation
and counselling. However, while the Act supports this principle, it overlooks the eligibility of
family law academics and researchers for judicial appointments in family courts. The current
provisions allow for the appointment of individuals without prior experience as judges or
advocates, including certain government employees with legal expertise. Yet, those involved
in teaching or researching family law are excluded, likely due to an oversight. The suggestion
is to either classify university employees as government employees or amend Section 4(3)(a)

2
Id. at 3, cl. 1.
3
Id,, s. 4(1).
4
Ibid.
5
Id., s. 4(2)(a).
6
d,„ s. 4(2)(6).
7
Id., s. 4(5).
8
Id., s. 4(6).
9
Id., s. 4(3)(c).
10
Id., s. 4(3)(b).

Page | 7
to explicitly include individuals with at least seven years of experience in teaching or
researching family law.

JURISDICTION OF FAMILY COURTS

There is ongoing debate regarding the scope of matters that should fall under the jurisdiction
of family courts. While there is general consensus that core family issues - such as matrimonial
disputes, spousal maintenance, child custody, education, financial support, property
settlements, and guardianship - should be included, opinions differ on whether related issues
like dowry cases, domestic violence, and other civil or criminal disputes among family
members should also be covered. Ultimately, Parliament has chosen to limit the jurisdiction of
family courts to direct family-related matters, excluding para-family disputes.

▪ Section 7 of this act grants the family courts the same powers and jurisdiction as the
District Court or Subordinate Civil Courts in their suits and proceedings.

▪ Section 7 (2) gives the family courts the authority to exercise the same jurisdiction as
a Magistrate of the First Class under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, as well as any other jurisdiction provided by law.

Types of Cases that are heard in Family Courts

▪ Dissolution of marriage

▪ Custody of child

▪ Domestic violence

▪ Maintenance

▪ Property disputes11

In recent times, we have witnessed a significant transformation in the structure of society, and
it has become evident that the existing legislative framework is not adequately keeping pace
with these changes. This disconnect has given rise to a pertinent question in the minds of many:

[A] “To what extent does the current jurisdiction of family courts in India address the
complexities of modern family disputes?”

11
Drishti IAS. (n.d.). concept of family courts. https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/to-the-point/ttp-hindu-
law/concept-of-family-courts

Page | 8
The jurisdiction of family courts in India is mainly outlined in Section 7 of the Family Courts
Act, 1984, which empowers these courts to handle legal issues related to marriage, divorce,
maintenance, custody, guardianship, and property disputes between spouses. These courts were
envisioned as a more specialized and sensitive alternative to traditional civil courts, aiming to
resolve family disputes quickly and amicably. However, as Indian society continues to evolve,
the scope of family court jurisdiction is increasingly being questioned.

Modern family structures have grown more diverse, with the rise of live-in relationships,
interfaith and intercaste marriages, LGBTQ+ partnerships, single-parent families, and
international custody or maintenance disputes. These changing dynamics have brought new
challenges that the current legal framework doesn't fully cover. For example, in the case of
Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma12, the Supreme Court recognized that live-in relationships deserve
protection under the Domestic Violence Act. Yet, the Court also acknowledged that there's still
no clear or consistent legal route for such relationships within the family court system.

In another case, K.A. Abdul Jaleel v. T.A. Shahida13, the Supreme Court took a broader view
of the Act and allowed a property dispute stemming from a family relationship to be settled
within the family court. While this was a positive step, it remains an exception rather than the
norm. Family courts still do not cover several related issues, including criminal matters like
dowry harassment, domestic abuse, or disputes involving family-related contracts.

In short, while family courts were created with good intentions, their current scope feels
outdated in the face of modern social realities. There’s a growing need to rethink and expand
their jurisdiction to truly serve the diverse needs of today’s families.

SUGGESTION

First, there is a need to amend Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, to broaden its scope.
Currently, family courts primarily handle matters like marriage, divorce, maintenance, and
custody. However, contemporary family dynamics such as live-in relationships, LGBTQ+
partnerships, and non-traditional family arrangements are not sufficiently addressed by the
existing framework. In Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma14, the Supreme Court acknowledged the
need to provide protection for live-in relationships, but noted that family courts do not have a
clear remedy for such relationships. Therefore, amending Section 7 to include non-marital

12
2013 (15) SCC 755
13
AIR 2003 SC 2525
14
2013 (15) SCC 755

Page | 9
cohabitation, property disputes in live-in relationships, and LGBTQ+ family issues would
ensure family courts can address these growing concerns more effectively. This expansion
would enable family courts to cater to the diversity of family structures present in modern
society.

Second, there should be guidelines for coordinating cases with other courts. Family disputes
often involve multiple legal forums, leading to fragmented and lengthy processes. For instance,
cases of domestic violence might be filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005, while maintenance or custody cases are pursued in family courts. This was
seen in K.A. Abdul Jaleel v. T.A. Shahida15, where the Supreme Court ruled on the jurisdiction
of family courts in resolving property disputes but left open questions regarding overlapping
matters. By establishing clear guidelines for coordinating family court cases with criminal or
consumer courts, litigants can experience more streamlined and efficient legal proceedings,
thus reducing the burden on the parties involved.

Third, to address the sensitive nature of family disputes, it is essential to introduce specialized
training for judges and court officers. Many judges lack expertise in the psychosocial aspects
of family matters, which may affect their ability to make informed decisions. Specialized
training in gender sensitivity, child welfare, and mental health would equip judges to handle
delicate family issues with more compassion and understanding. In cases involving child
custody, for instance, as seen in Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India16, where the Supreme
Court emphasized the need for a child's welfare in custody disputes, specialized training would
help judges make decisions that prioritize the emotional well-being of children involved in
these disputes.

Fourth, establishing interdisciplinary support systems is crucial. Family disputes often require
insights from professionals beyond legal experts, such as psychologists, social workers, and
child welfare experts. Such experts can help family courts assess the emotional and
psychological needs of the parties involved, especially children. Finally, it is important to
promote public awareness and accessibility to family courts. Despite their existence, many
individuals are unaware of family courts and continue to approach traditional civil courts for
family disputes. Public awareness campaigns could educate people about the services offered
by family courts, emphasizing their role in providing a faster and more specialized resolution

15
AIR 2003 SC 2525
16
AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 1149

Page | 10
of family matters. Additionally, online platforms for filing cases and conducting hearings
would make family courts more accessible, particularly for women and marginalized
communities, who might otherwise face barriers to justice.

[B] “To what extent does the jurisdiction of family courts in India promote dispute resolution
and protect vulnerable members of the family?”

The Family Courts Act of 1984 in India establishes family courts to address family disputes
through a specialized, expedited process, with a focus on conciliation and preserving family
relationships. The legislation aims to protect the welfare of vulnerable family members,
particularly women and children, by offering a platform for resolving issues through mediation
and counseling. However, the scope and effectiveness of family courts in safeguarding
vulnerable individuals have been debated, particularly with regard to the complexities of
modern family dynamics.

Promotion of Dispute Resolution

A primary objective of family courts is to encourage amicable dispute resolution. The law
mandates that family courts attempt conciliation before engaging in litigation. In K.A. Abdul
Jaleel v. T.A. Shahida17, the Supreme Court emphasized that family courts should aim to settle
disputes amicably and avoid prolonged legal battles, particularly in sensitive matters such as
child custody and maintenance. This highlights the court's role in providing efficient and fair
solutions. However, the effectiveness of conciliation in family courts largely depends on the
training of judges and the availability of proper mediation resources. In Vimlaben Ajaykumar
v. Vatslaben18, the Supreme Court stressed the need for judges to be sensitized to the social and
psychological aspects of family disputes. The Court suggested that family courts should not
only focus on legal matters but also consider the emotional and relational dimensions of
disputes. This underlines the necessity of a holistic approach to resolving family disputes.

Protection of Vulnerable Family Members

Family courts are also tasked with protecting vulnerable individuals, especially women and
children. Protection from domestic violence and ensuring the welfare of children are integral
to the jurisdiction of family courts. These courts provide swift relief in maintenance and
custody cases, helping avoid the delays often experienced in regular civil courts. In Batra v.

17
AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 2525
18
AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 2675

Page | 11
Batra19, the Supreme Court highlighted how family courts efficiently protected the woman’s
right to residence and safeguarded her from harassment, underscoring the effectiveness of
family courts in dealing with domestic violence cases.

Additionally, in Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India20, the Court emphasized that the best
interests of the child should always be the priority in custody disputes, affirming that family
courts should place the child's emotional welfare and family stability above legal formalities.
Despite these positive outcomes, family courts still face challenges in implementing protective
measures effectively. They often lack necessary interdisciplinary support, such as psychologists
and social workers, which would help in understanding the emotional and social aspects of
family disputes.

Challenges in Protection

Some family courts have been criticized for failing to implement protective measures
effectively. while family courts have the potential to protect vulnerable parties, the failure to
enforce maintenance orders and visitation rights diminishes their effectiveness. This highlights
the lack of access to these protections, particularly in rural areas where family courts are less
accessible.

Moreover, family courts have struggled with jurisdictional challenges when dealing with non-
traditional family structures. Cases involving live-in relationships or LGBTQ+ partnerships are
often outside the scope of current family court jurisdiction, leading to a lack of legal clarity. In
Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma21, the Supreme Court acknowledged the need for clearer legal
frameworks to address issues arising from live-in relationships, which are often excluded from
family court jurisdiction.

Suggestions for Improvement

To better serve vulnerable family members, family courts should extend their jurisdiction to
include modern family structures, such as those arising from live-in relationships and LGBTQ+
families. There should also be an emphasis on incorporating interdisciplinary support,
including social workers and child welfare officers, to help courts make better-informed
decisions. Lastly, judges and court officers should undergo specialized training in gender

19
(2007) 7 SCC 169
20
1999) 2 SCC 228
21
2013 (15) SCC 755

Page | 12
sensitivity, mental health, and child welfare to ensure more compassionate and effective
protection for vulnerable family members.

In conclusion, while family courts in India play a crucial role in resolving family disputes and
protecting vulnerable members, there is room for improvement. Expanding jurisdiction to
include non-traditional family dynamics, strengthening support systems, and providing
specialized training for judges would improve the effectiveness of family courts in addressing
the complexities of modern family disputes.

PROCEDURES FOLLOWED IN FAMILY COURTS

▪ he family court shall be deemed to be a civil court and shall have the powers of such court.

▪ Section 10(1) applies the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the suits or
proceedings of the family court.

o Section 10(2) says that the provisions of the CPC, 1908 are applied on the suits
and proceedings of the family court, under chapter IX of the code.

o Section 10(3) gives power to the family court to lay down its own procedure
according to the circumstances of the suit or proceeding or at the truth of the
facts made by one party and refused by another, intending to arrive at a
settlement.

▪ Section 11 of the act, the proceedings of the family court may be held in camera, if the court
feels so, or any party to the suit wants to do such.

o The family courts work with fewer formalities, they don’t record the lengthy
evidence of witnesses, only that evidence of the witness is recorded which is
related to the subject matter.

▪ According to Section 14 of the act any report, statement or document, related to the subject
matter is admissible under Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).

▪ Also, as per Section 15 of the act, it is not necessary for a family court to record the
evidence of a witness at length, only that part is sufficient which is related to the suit or
proceeding, and it should be signed by the judge and the witness.22

22
Drishti IAS. (n.d.). concept of family courts. https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/to-the-point/ttp-hindu-
law/concept-of-family-courts.

Page | 13
Some question arises about overlook the procedures of family court are -:

[A]“How effective are the procedural mechanisms under the Family Courts Act, 1984 in
ensuring timely and accessible justice for litigants in family disputes?”

Family courts deal with highly sensitive matters such as domestic violence, spousal
maintenance, child custody, and marital discord. Therefore, procedural practices must prioritize
gender justice and child welfare.

Section 10 of the Family Courts Act allows courts to evolve informal procedures and even
record evidence in a non-adversarial setting. However, in practice, many courts still follow
rigid procedures that often fail to account for psychological trauma, power imbalance, and
emotional needs of vulnerable parties, particularly women and children.

The Family Courts have been established for adopting and facilitating the conciliation
procedure and to deal with family disputes in a speedy and expeditious manner. A three-Judge
Bench in K.A. Abdul Jaleel v. T.A. Shahida23 while highlighting on the purpose of bringing in
the Family Courts Act by the legislature, opined thus-: “The Family Courts Act was enacted to
provide for the establishment of Family Courts with a view to promote conciliation in, and
secure speedy settlement of, disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for matters
connected therewith.”

In Shamima Farooqui Vs Shahid Khan,24 there has expressed very serious concern in respect
of delayed adjudications and unnecessary adjournments leading to prolonged pendency of
cases.

Shilpa Aggarwal v. Aviral Mittal,25 A custody case where the court highlighted how procedural
delays in family matters can negatively affect the child’s welfare. It advocated for prioritizing
such cases and using urgent procedures.

CHALLENGES

Although family courts in India were created to offer quick and conciliatory solutions for
sensitive family matters, they continue to face several practical and structural challenges that
limit their effectiveness. One of the key concerns is the delay in resolving cases. While the
Family Courts Act, 1984, clearly prioritizes swift, amicable settlements through conciliation,

23
AIR 2003 SC 2525
24
AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 2025
25
2009 AIR SCW 7694

Page | 14
the reality on the ground is quite different. Many family courts are heavily overloaded with
pending cases, which leads to long-drawn proceedings - even in urgent matters like child
custody or protection from domestic abuse - defeating the very aim of the Act. Another major
issue is the shortage of mediation and counseling facilities. Family disputes are not just legal
problems - they’re emotional and social too. However, many courts lack trained mediators or
psychological counselors who can guide families toward peaceful settlements. Without these
support systems, courts are forced to take a purely legal route, often missing the human aspect
of these conflicts. Accessibility also remains a concern, especially in rural and smaller towns,
where family courts are few and far between. This lack of reach makes it hard for vulnerable
individuals - particularly women and children—to access justice without facing logistical or
financial hurdles. Lastly, the lack of specialized judges further complicates matters. Many
family court judges are generalists who haven’t received training in family law, gender
dynamics, or child psychology. This often means they may not fully grasp the emotional
complexity involved in family disputes. Altogether, these problems show that while the idea
behind family courts is progressive and much needed, the system needs significant
improvements to function as a truly supportive, efficient, and people-friendly space for
resolving family issues.

SUGGESTION

To address the challenges faced by family courts in India, several key reforms are needed to
ensure these courts serve their purpose effectively, with empathy and in line with their original
goals. First and foremost, it’s crucial to increase the number of family courts, particularly in
rural and semi-urban areas, where access to justice is often limited. By doing this, the burden
on existing courts will decrease, and vulnerable groups, especially women and children, will
find it easier to access legal help without having to travel long distances. Additionally,
improving case management processes to ensure faster resolution, with clear timelines and
digital monitoring, will help reduce delays in cases like custody disputes or maintenance
claims. Another important change is to build a strong framework for mediation and counseling
within the courts. Having trained mediators, psychologists, and family counselors available can
encourage amicable resolutions and reduce the combative nature of legal battles. Furthermore,
judges need specialized training in areas such as gender sensitivity, child psychology, and the
social aspects of family law. This will help them approach cases with greater empathy,
understanding the emotional and psychological impacts on the parties involved, especially
when power imbalances or emotional trauma are at play. Incorporating technology into the

Page | 15
family court system, such as allowing online case filing, virtual hearings, and digital
counseling, will make these courts more accessible, particularly for people in remote areas.
Finally, public awareness campaigns should be launched to inform the public about the
availability and benefits of family courts. Many people remain unaware of their rights and the
non-adversarial nature of family court proceedings. By implementing these changes, we can
enhance the accessibility, efficiency, and empathy of family courts in India, ensuring they meet
the evolving needs of society.

Page | 16
CONCLUSION

The Family Courts Act of 1984 marked a significant step forward in India's judicial landscape
by establishing specialized courts to address family disputes with sensitivity, expedition, and a
focus on reconciliation. However, as this analysis demonstrates, the current framework faces
numerous challenges in addressing the complexities of modern family dynamics and ensuring
accessible justice for all concerned parties. The jurisdiction of family courts, while covering
essential matters such as marriage, divorce, and child custody, requires expansion to
accommodate emerging social realities including live-in relationships, LGBTQ+ partnerships,
and other non-traditional family structures. Procedurally, despite provisions in the Family
Courts Act allowing for flexible and informal approaches, many courts continue to follow rigid
adversarial models that exacerbate rather than alleviate family conflicts. The emphasis on
conciliation and mediation, though laudable in intent, often falls short in implementation due
to inadequate support systems and specialized training for judicial officers. The protection of
vulnerable family members, particularly women and children, remains a paramount concern
that requires strengthened mechanisms within the family court system. As highlighted in cases
like Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India, the welfare of children must consistently be
prioritized in custody disputes, necessitating judges who are trained in child psychology and
family dynamics. To address these challenges, several reforms are imperative. First, the
jurisdiction of family courts should be expanded to encompass contemporary family structures.
Second, interdisciplinary support systems featuring psychologists, social workers, and
mediators should be integrated into the family court framework. Third, specialized training for
judges and court personnel in gender sensitivity, child welfare, and mental health is essential.
Fourth, the use of technology should be enhanced to improve accessibility and reduce delays.
Finally, public awareness campaigns are needed to ensure that citizens understand their rights
and the available legal remedies. As Indian society continues to evolve, so too must its family
court system adapt to meet changing needs. By implementing these reforms, family courts can
better fulfill their intended purpose of providing swift, sensitive, and holistic resolutions to
family disputes, thereby preserving familial bonds where possible and ensuring fair outcomes
for all parties involved. The true measure of success for family courts lies not merely in the
disposal of cases but in their ability to heal relationships, protect vulnerable individuals, and
uphold the dignity of all family members in a rapidly changing social landscape.

Page | 17
BIBLIOGRAPHY

STATUTES

• The Family Courts Act, 1984, No. 66, Acts of Parliament, 1984 (India).
• The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, No. 25, Acts of Parliament, 1955 (India).

BOOKS

• PARAS DIWAN, MODERN HINDU LAW (23rd ed., 2016).

WEBSITES

• www.tnsja.tn.gov.in
• www.casemine.com
• www.journalijar.com
• www.jstor.org
• www.drishtijudiciary.com
• indiankanoon.org

Page | 18