{"id":343815,"date":"2025-03-18T12:00:04","date_gmt":"2025-03-18T06:30:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=343815"},"modified":"2025-03-24T09:17:22","modified_gmt":"2025-03-24T03:47:22","slug":"madras-high-court-upholds-constitutionality-section-13-family-courts-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/18\/madras-high-court-upholds-constitutionality-section-13-family-courts-act\/","title":{"rendered":"Madras HC upholds Constitutionality of S. 13 of Family Courts Act; Affirms Principles in Paradip Port Trust Case"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Madras High Court:<\/span> In a writ petition seeking writ of declaration, declaring Section 13<\/a> of the Family Courts Act, 1984<\/a> as unconstitutional, the division bench of S.M. Subramaniam*<\/span> and K. Rajasekar, JJ. while affirming the principles laid down in Paradip Port Trust, Paradip<\/span> v. Their Workmen<\/span>, (1977) 2 SCC 339<\/a>, reiterated that no party can claim as a matter of right, a right to be represented through lawyer. It is open to the legislature to put restrictions on such representation by legal practitioner, having regard to the aims and object of the Act. Thus, the Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 13<\/a> of the Family Courts Act<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The petitioner contended that Section 13<\/a> of the Family Courts Act<\/a> infringes upon the fundamental right to practice in courts, as guaranteed under the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961<\/a>. The petitioner argued that the right of a legal practitioner to practice is an absolute right under the Advocates Act<\/a>, and therefore, any prohibition in this regard would be unsustainable. In support of this contention, the petitioner submitted that in the absence of legal representation, litigants in Family Courts are facing significant difficulties in defending their cases. Consequently, it was argued that Section 13, which restricts the right of legal practitioners to appear in Family Courts, infringes upon this fundamental right and should, therefore, be declared unconstitutional.<\/p>\n

Per contra, the Union of India contended that the Family Courts 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 these judgments be followed to maintain consistency in the implementation of the Central Act. It was further argued that there is no absolute prohibition on legal representation, as Section 13, when read in conjunction with the Family Courts (Procedure) Rules, 1996 permits representation by a lawyer in deserving cases. Therefore, contrary to the petitioner’s claim, there is no blanket prohibition, and the Family Courts have the discretion to allow legal representation in appropriate circumstances.<\/p>\n

The Court took note of Lata<\/span> v. Union of India<\/span>, 1993 SCC OnLine Bom 7<\/a>, wherein the Court tested the validity of Section 13<\/a> of the Family Courts Act, 1984<\/a>, and following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Paradip Port trust case<\/span>( supra), held that no party can claim as a matter of right, a right to be represented through lawyer. It is open to the legislature to put restrictions on such representation by legal practitioner, having regard to the aims and object of the Act. Further, the Supreme Court has recognised only fundamental right under Constitution to be represented by a lawyer is under Article 22(1)<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Court further noted that the petitioner had raised the issue that Section 13<\/a> of the Family Courts Act<\/a> is discriminatory, as litigants outside the jurisdiction of the Family Courts are permitted to be represented by lawyers, particularly in the Sub Courts in Taluk and other areas of the State. The Court observed that this argument of discrimination had already been considered by the Bombay High Court and was found to be without merit. The Court reasoned that once it is established that the classification made by Section 13(1)(a)<\/a> of the Family Courts Act<\/a> is a reasonable classification, the same reasoning should apply to Section 13. It was further emphasized that Section 13 does not create an absolute bar on legal representation. Instead, it allows parties to make an application to the Family Court under the Family Courts (Procedure) Rules, as notified by the respective High Courts, to seek permission for legal representation in appropriate cases.<\/p>\n

The Court took note of the judgments of the Bombay High Court, Rajasthan High Court, and Allahabad High Court, where the Courts had upheld the validity of Section 13<\/a> of the Family Courts Act<\/a>, ruling that it does not offend Article 22(1)<\/a> of the Constitution<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Court further referred to Thyssen Krupp Industries India (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Suresh Maruti Chougule<\/span>, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1707<\/a>, wherein a similar provision under the Industrial Disputes Act was considered. The Bench has settled the legal principles regarding absolute right to practice law in Courts, Tribunals etc. In this case, the Supreme Court while agreeing with Paradip Port Trust case (supra)<\/span>, held that the matter is not to be reviewed from the point of view of the legal practitioner but from the aspect of the employer and workmen who are the principal contestants in an industrial dispute, which was taken into consideration in Paradip Port Trust case.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that in the present case, the primary stakeholders are the husband and wife, along with their children or relatives. Given this, the principles established in the Paradip Port Trust<\/span> case (supra) would be more appropriate, and there is no scope for adopting a different view.<\/p>\n

In light of the aforesaid settled legal principles, the Court concluded that no further adjudication regarding the grounds raised by the petitioner would be necessary.<\/p>\n

[Vijaya Vaishnavi Sriram v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Mad 1509<\/a>, decided on 05-03-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Order by: Justice S.M.Subramaniam<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For Petitioner:<\/span> Mr. Mahesh Kumar.S<\/p>\n

For Respondents:<\/span> Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, Additional Solicitor General of India, Mr.R.Rajesh Vivekananthan Deputy Solicitor General of India, Mr. G. Ameedius, Government Advocate, Mr. S. Vinod<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the present case, the primary stakeholders are the husband and wife, along with their children or relatives. Given this, the principles established in the Paradip Port Trust case would be more appropriate, and there is no scope for adopting a different view.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67512,"featured_media":314802,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[12481,79895,9191,31368,3268,74658,2567,60829,31865,79896],"class_list":["post-343815","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-advocates-act","tag-constitutionality-of-section-13","tag-family-courts-act","tag-family-law","tag-Fundamental_Rights","tag-legal-ruling","tag-Madras_High_Court","tag-right-to-legal-aid","tag-right-to-practice","tag-section-13-family-courts-act"],"yoast_head":"\nMadras High Court upholds Constitutionality of Section 13 of the Family Courts Act | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Madras High Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, affirming its validity and addressing the legal challenges raised against it.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/18\/madras-high-court-upholds-constitutionality-section-13-family-courts-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Madras HC upholds Constitutionality of S. 13 of Family Courts Act; Affirms Principles in Paradip Port Trust Case\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Madras High Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, affirming its validity and addressing the legal challenges raised against it.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/18\/madras-high-court-upholds-constitutionality-section-13-family-courts-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-03-18T06:30:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-03-24T03:47:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"591\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Madras HC upholds Constitutionality of S. 13 of Family Courts Act; Affirms Principles in Paradip Port Trust Case\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Apoorva\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/18\/madras-high-court-upholds-constitutionality-section-13-family-courts-act\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/18\/madras-high-court-upholds-constitutionality-section-13-family-courts-act\/\",\"name\":\"Madras High Court upholds Constitutionality of Section 13 of the Family Courts Act | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/18\/madras-high-court-upholds-constitutionality-section-13-family-courts-act\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/18\/madras-high-court-upholds-constitutionality-section-13-family-courts-act\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-03-18T06:30:04+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-03-24T03:47:22+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\"},\"description\":\"Madras High Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, affirming its validity and addressing the legal challenges raised against it.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/18\/madras-high-court-upholds-constitutionality-section-13-family-courts-act\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/18\/madras-high-court-upholds-constitutionality-section-13-family-courts-act\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/18\/madras-high-court-upholds-constitutionality-section-13-family-courts-act\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp\",\"width\":887,\"height\":591,\"caption\":\"Madras High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/18\/madras-high-court-upholds-constitutionality-section-13-family-courts-act\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Madras HC upholds Constitutionality of S. 13 of Family Courts Act; Affirms Principles in Paradip Port Trust Case\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9\",\"name\":\"Apoorva\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Apoorva\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Madras High Court upholds Constitutionality of Section 13 of the Family Courts Act | SCC Times","description":"Madras High Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, affirming its validity and addressing the legal challenges raised against it.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/18\/madras-high-court-upholds-constitutionality-section-13-family-courts-act\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Madras HC upholds Constitutionality of S. 13 of Family Courts Act; Affirms Principles in Paradip Port Trust Case","og_description":"Madras High Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, affirming its validity and addressing the legal challenges raised against it.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/18\/madras-high-court-upholds-constitutionality-section-13-family-courts-act\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-03-18T06:30:04+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-03-24T03:47:22+00:00","og_image":[{"width":887,"height":591,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Apoorva","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Madras HC upholds Constitutionality of S. 13 of Family Courts Act; Affirms Principles in Paradip Port Trust Case","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Apoorva","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/18\/madras-high-court-upholds-constitutionality-section-13-family-courts-act\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/18\/madras-high-court-upholds-constitutionality-section-13-family-courts-act\/","name":"Madras High Court upholds Constitutionality of Section 13 of the Family Courts Act | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/18\/madras-high-court-upholds-constitutionality-section-13-family-courts-act\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/18\/madras-high-court-upholds-constitutionality-section-13-family-courts-act\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp","datePublished":"2025-03-18T06:30:04+00:00","dateModified":"2025-03-24T03:47:22+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9"},"description":"Madras High Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, affirming its validity and addressing the legal challenges raised against it.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/18\/madras-high-court-upholds-constitutionality-section-13-family-courts-act\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/18\/madras-high-court-upholds-constitutionality-section-13-family-courts-act\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/18\/madras-high-court-upholds-constitutionality-section-13-family-courts-act\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp","width":887,"height":591,"caption":"Madras High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/18\/madras-high-court-upholds-constitutionality-section-13-family-courts-act\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Madras HC upholds Constitutionality of S. 13 of Family Courts Act; Affirms Principles in Paradip Port Trust Case"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/288d814d0864b57168e08daa1940a1c9","name":"Apoorva","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/549edb3ed2c7046a0c504583cf71db32c50251c1260a6331b2cc2973e80b0e91?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Apoorva"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":253653,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/03\/representation-by-advocates-before-labour-courts\/","url_meta":{"origin":343815,"position":0},"title":"Representation by Advocates before Labour Courts: Del HC reiterates there is no absolute bar","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 3, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Prathiba M. Singh, J.,\u00a0while reiterating that there is no absolute bar on legal practitioners representing Management before Labour Courts, observed that: Judicial decisions on the question of consent, including implied consent, have primarily turned on the facts of each case. Instant petition challenged the order by which\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":282847,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/01\/madras-high-court-open-for-muslim-woman-to-dissolve-marriage-by-khula-recognised-under-shariat-by-approaching-a-family-court-not-before-a-self-declared-body-consisting-of-few-mem\/","url_meta":{"origin":343815,"position":1},"title":"Muslim woman can dissolve marriage by \u2018Khula\u2019 recognised under Shariat; Madras High Court quashes Khula certificate issued by Shariat Council","author":"Editor","date":"February 1, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court while quashing the Khula certificate issued by the Shariat Council, held that while it is open for a Muslim woman to exercise her inalienable rights to dissolve the marriage by Khula recognised under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 by approaching a Family Court, it\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Madras High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Madras-High-Court-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":315678,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/29\/orissa-hc-orders-arrest-of-vessel-mv-debi-for-unpaid-berth-hire-charges-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":343815,"position":2},"title":"Orissa HC orders arrest of Vessel at Paradip Port for unpaid berth hire charges and penalty of about 8 crores","author":"Editor","date":"February 29, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Paradip International Cargo Terminal Pvt. Ltd. sought arrest of the cargo vessel for the unpaid dues of about 7.95 Crores towards the berth hire and penal berth hire charges.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Orissa High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Orissa-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Orissa-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Orissa-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Orissa-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":248681,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/05\/25\/domestic-violence-act-2\/","url_meta":{"origin":343815,"position":3},"title":"Madras HC | Can Criminal Proceedings instituted under DV Act be converted as Civil Proceedings, so as to transfer such proceedings before Civil Court or Family Court while exercising supervisory powers under Art. 227 of Constitution? Read on","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 25, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court: S.M. Subramaniam, J., held that Protraction and prolongation of litigations affecting women can never be encouraged by the Courts. Husband and wife used to live in Singapore and when a misunderstanding arose between the two, the husband stated that the respondent\/wife deserted him in the year 2018.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":283236,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/06\/institutional-framework-in-national-trust-act-not-confined-only-to-persons-with-autism-cerebral-palsy-and-mental-retardation-madras-high-court-allows-appointment-of-legal-guardi\/","url_meta":{"origin":343815,"position":4},"title":"\u201cInstitutional framework in National Trust Act not confined only to persons with autism, cerebral palsy, and mental retardation\u201d; Madras High Court allows appointment of legal guardian for schizophrenic woman","author":"Editor","date":"February 6, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court stated that the expression \u201cperson suffering from multiple disability\u201d under 1999 Act will be equivalent in meaning to \u201cperson with benchmark disability\u201d under Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Thus, allowed the petitioner to be appointed as a guardian to her sister, suffering from schizophrenia.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Madras High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Madras-High-Court-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":278706,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/28\/madras-high-court-jurisdiction-under-article-227-will-not-be-exercised-as-measure-of-self-imposed-restriction-by-passing-the-statutory-remedies-under-the-d-v-act-legal-researc\/","url_meta":{"origin":343815,"position":5},"title":"Madras High Court |Jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be exercised as a measure of self-imposed restriction by-passing statutory remedies under D.V. Act","author":"Editor","date":"November 28, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Madras High Court: The full bench of P.N. Prakash, Teekaa Raman and A.D Jagadish Chandira, JJ. held that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution will not be exercised, as a measure of self-imposed restriction, by-passing the statutory remedies under the D.V. Act. Further, it will be\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Madras High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Madras-High-Court-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/343815","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67512"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=343815"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/343815\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/314802"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=343815"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=343815"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=343815"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}