HC disposes PIL against Holiday Family Courts

Image
Press Trust of India Chennai
Last Updated : Apr 20 2014 | 12:05 AM IST
The Madras High Court today disposed a PIL which sought to declare functioning of Holiday Family Courts as illegal and ultra vires to the Family Courts Act.
A Division Bench comprising Justice N Paul Vasanthakumar and Justice M Sathyanarayanan, which recorded the opinions by advocates for restricting the Holiday Family Courts to Saturdays only, directed the Registrar General to consider the matter administratively.
The petitioners contended that the functioning of the Holiday Family Courts at Chennai has no legal basis and by not declaring holidays/vacation to such courts in advance, advocates engaged as conciliator/amicus curiae were affected.
V Vijayasankar, appearing for Registrar General, submitted that the high court introduced Holiday Family Courts for the benefit of litigants and there was no illegality in it.
During the pendency of the petition, the high court on its administrative side considered the request of the Women Lawyers Association and decided to restrict the sittings of Holiday Family Courts at Chennai on Saturdays only with effect from March 11, 2014, he submitted.
The bench said "by a reading of Article 235 of the Constitution read with the objects of the Family Courts Act, we are of firm view that the jurisdiction of this court to notify that Family Courts in Chennai will function on holidays is having legal sanction."
"Only for speedy settlement of disputes and considering the fact that in Chennai, large number of persons filing family disputes were in employment, this court thought fit that functioning of Family Courts on holidays would be more convenient for the litigants and it was also welcomed by the litigants and also proved as successful from the data furnished by the Registry regarding the number of cases disposed in Holiday Family Courts.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner expressed their satisfaction for restricting the holiday family courts to Saturdays only.
"This court is of the view that the petitioner and the associations can submit representation to that effect to this court on administrative side," the bench said.
*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Apr 20 2014 | 12:05 AM IST

Next Story