Patna High Court: In a criminal revision, filed by the petitioner-husband, challenging a maintenance order passed by the Family Court directing him to pay maintenance to the wife, the Single-Judge Bench of Bibek Chaudhuri, J., observed that the Family Court did not send the case record for conciliation through counsellors, nor was there any averment regarding the appointment of counsellors as per the mandatory provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (‘1984 Act’), and rules thereunder. The Court directed the Registrar General to investigate the appointment and functioning of counsellors in Family Courts in the State.
Background:
The petitioner had raised preliminary objections against the manner in which the Family Court disposed of the maintenance case. It was submitted that the 1984 Act was promulgated not for adversarial litigation but primarily to dispose of the matrimonial discord by process of conciliation and mediation to save the family and not by delivery of judgment to sever the family. It was further contended by the petitioner that Rule 10 and 11 of the Family Courts (Patna High Court) Rules, 2000 (‘2000 Rules’), and Rule 9 and 10 of the Bihar Family Court Rules, 2011, specifically delineate the process for settlement and the duties and functions of counsellors in facilitating amicable resolutions, which was not followed by the Family Court.
It was further contended that disposal of a case under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) without taking recourse to conciliation following the provision contained in Section 9 of the 1984 Act and the Rules made thereunder was illegal exercise of power vested upon the Family Court and the impugned order was liable to be set aside for non-compliance of statutory provision of the Act and the rules made thereunder.
Court’s Analysis:
The Court noted that there was no averment by either party as to whether counsellors had been appointed in the Family Courts for conciliation as per Rule 10 of the Bihar Family Courts Rules, 2011. Furthermore, it was unclear if Rule 11 of the Family Court (Patna High Court) Rules, 2000, which outlines the procedure for arriving at a settlement, was being adhered to. The Court noted that compliance with Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and Rules 10 and 11 is obligatory.
The Court emphasised that if counsellors are not appointed by the Government and attached to the Family Courts, and if cases are not referred for conciliation through them, the mandatory provisions under the Family Courts Act and the rules made thereunder are violated. The Court noted that courts cannot violate the aforementioned provisions and follow an adversarial justice delivery system. The Court observed that the Family Court did not send the case record for conciliation through counsellors.
The Court directed the Registrar General of the Patna High Court to collect and collate a comprehensive report to specifically inform the Court as to whether counsellors have been appointed in the Courts of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, across the State of Bihar. If such appointments exist, the report must also include details regarding the remuneration of these counsellors and the number of cases they are conciliating daily.
Furthermore, the Court, being mindful of the destitution of the wife and her immediate sustenance, found it necessary to make an interim provision for her maintenance during the pendency of the instant revision application. The final order in the instant revision will be passed after consideration of the detailed report from the Registrar General.
[Abdul Rehan Khan v. State of Bihar, Criminal Revision No. 771 of 2024, decided on 24-06-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Shama Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent: Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, APP, Sanjay Kumar Ghosarvey, Advocate
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
