VIJAYA VAISHNAVI SRIRAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Writ of Declaration has been instituted to declare Sec. 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 as unconstitutional.

(2.) The learned Counsel for Petitioner would mainly contend that the provision infringes the right to practice in Courts contemplated under the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961. Right of a Legal Practitioner is an absolute right under the Advocates Act and therefore, any prohibition in this regard is unsustainable. In support of the said contention, the learned Counsel for Petitioner would submit that in the absence of Lawyers, the litigants in the Family Courts are finding it difficult to defend their cases and thus, Sec. 13 infringing the right of Legal Practitioners is liable to be declared as unconstitutional.

(3.) Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of Union of India would strenuously oppose by stating that the validity of Sec. 13 of the Family Courts Act is no more Res integra. The Act is a Central Act and since the validity of the said provision has been upheld by the Bombay High Court and two other High Courts, Judicial discipline requires that the said Judgments are to be followed in order to avoid any inconsistency in implementing the Central Act. It is contended that there is no absolute prohibition, since Sec. 13 read with the Family Courts (Procedure) Rules, 1996 notified by the High Court of Madras, more specifically, Rule 41 provides permission for representation by a Lawyer. Therefore, there is no absolute prohibition as contended by the Petitioner. Permission is granted in deserving cases and the Family Courts are empowered to withdraw the permission, wherever necessary. Thus, the Writ on hand is devoid of merits.