Advocates, those who practice in the Madras High Court annexed Family Courts, may not have found any difficulty in representing their Clients, whereas, the same is contrary to Advocates practice in the rural or suburb Courts including that of a District Courts. HOW?

Family Courts, Chennai, never ask Advocates to file Vakalat / Permission Petition to represent their Clients and manier times it was Advocates who file such Petitions and rub wrong shoulder of the Courts when their Petitions get dismissed for simple reason – Court calls them to represent without any such Petitions.

The prime reason, for declining such Petitions by the Chennai based Family Courts, is to ensure fast disposal of the cases. Why not such practice be followed by District Courts and suburb Courts?

District Courts and Family Courts requires to understand practical difficulties therein – that without legal representation of Advocates the whole of litigants cannot address the Court appropriate of their case details; let it be Divorce, Maintenance, Divorce by Mutual Consent, Restitution of Conjugal Rights…

So the rural Courts requires to follow the same procedures as followed by the Family Courts at Chennai in order to expedite disposal of the cases and also on the backdrop of litigants appear there have no elementary knowledge of family laws.

Otherwise, Family Courts Act, 1984, calls for amicable settlement of matrimony disputes between the Spouses through counselling and mediation. And, this could be possible only to an extent of one to one discussion with the Counsellor or Mediator.

But, if not settled then Advocates intervention to resolve the matter by assisting Court become necessary. So point is without Advocates representation the case cannot or can never find a remedy. Having all the Chennai based Family Courts dealing with matrimony disputes completely aware of such facts then why rural Courts are chasing Advocates for filing of Vakalat and Permission Petition?

Section 13 of Family Courts Act, 1984 reads as follows;
Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, no party to a suit or proceeding before a Family Court shall be entitled, as of right, to be represented by a legal practitioner:
Provided that if the Family Court considers it necessary in the interest of justice, it may seek the assistance of a legal expert as amicus curie.

The Legislators intention was to settle the matter amongst the disputants with the Court mediation and Counselling. So interference with regard to finding solution to the dispute wrest with the disputants and the Courts.

Did the Legislators never think that a matrimony dispute require Advocates assistance from the very beginning of choosing a Jurisdiction to provisions of law – under which a desired remedy could be sought?

It is because such need of the litigants realized by the Family Courts at Chennai they inclined to allow Advocates to represents the litigants from the very beginning of the case once reaching the Court. Fact is almost all the Family Courts at Chennai, go to an extent of appointing Advocate to represent litigant from the State Legal Aid.

The District Courts and rural Courts may take such cue from the Family Courts at Chennai and work for the speedy disposal of the case instead adopting rigid rules taking them nowhere in the justice delivery system but allow them to stockpile the cases!

When there is no uniformity in practice, in the Family Courts of a State, with regard to a provision of law then how these Family Courts would implement Uniform Civil Code (upon its legislation)?