JUDGMENT- S.P. KURDUKAR, J.:---This batch of writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India raise a common question as regards constitutional validity of sections 3 and 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and certain Rules framed thereunder. In some of the petitions challenge is also made to the impugned orders passed by the learned Judges of the Family Courts rejecting applications of the petitioners for allowing them to be represented by an Advocate.

2. Before we deal with constitutional challenges, a brief reference to the Statement of Objects of the Act will facilitate to appreciate the rival contentions. The said Act was passed sometime in the year 1984. Statement of Objects and Reasons contained in Bill No. XXI of 1984, that several associations of women, other organisations and individuals have urged, from time to time, the necessity of establishing the Family Courts for settlement of family disputes. It was also urged that emphasis should be laid on the conciliation and achieving specially desirable results. Adherence to the rigid rules of procedure and evidence should be eliminated. The Law Commission in its 59th Report (1974) had also stressed that in dealing with the disputes concerning the family the Court ought to adopt an approach radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings and it should make reasonable efforts at settlement before commencement of the trial. Prior to coming into force of the Act, on the same lines the Code of Civil Procedure was amended in the year 1976 by adding Order 32-A, but however, desired result did not follow and, therefore, need was felt in the public interest to establish Family Courts for speedy settlement of disputes.

3. The Preamble of the Act reads that this Act provides for establishment of the Family Courts with a view to promote conciliation in and secure speedy settlement of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for matters connected therewith. Consistent with this preamble the Act came to be passed sometime in the year 1984, keeping in view the object of promoting conciliation in and securing speedy settlement of family disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and other matters connected therewith.

4. Mr. Gole, learned Counsel appearing in support of one of the writ petitions urged that section 3 has created an absurd, irrational, unconstitutional and arbitrary class of litigants although similarly situated in all respects. Section 3 is, therefore, unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 19(a) of Constitution of India. Section 3 reads as under.

"3(1) For the purpose of exercising the jurisdiction and powers conferred on a Family Court by this Act, the State Government, after consultation with the High Court, and by notification,

(a) shall, as soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, establish for every area in the State comprising a city or town whose population exceeds one million, a Family Court;

(b) may establish Family Courts for such other areas in the State as it may deem necessary.

(2) The State Government shall, after consultation with the High Court, specify, by notification, the local limits of the area to which the jurisdiction of a Family Court shall extend and may, at any time, increase reduce, or alter such limits."

Section 3 makes it obligatory upon the State Government to establish Family Courts in a city or town whose population exceeds one million. The said provision also gives discretion to the State Government to establish Family Courts for such other areas in the State, other than falling in Sub-clause (a), if the State Government thinks necessary. According to Shri Gole, classification based on population is irrational, unconstitutional and arbitrary. The litigants, who are having common cause in respect of marriage and family affairs are treated unequally on the basis of population and, therefore, it offends Article 14 of Constituti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document