IMPORTANT POINT
Family Courts must adhere to procedural requirements for mediation and notice, ensuring parties can adequately defend their claims.

JUDGMENT :

Devan Ramachandran, J.

1. Going by the scheme of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and the Rules thereunder, when an Original Petition/application is preferred by a party, Family Courts are empowered to decide, within the ambit of Rule 4A(2) of the Family Courts Rules (for short “Rules”), whether there is a chance of settlement; and if so, to issue notice to the parties under Form No. 8, requiring them to be present before it to consider such course. At this stage, because of the inhibition under the Rules itself, a copy of the Original Petition/application is not given to the other side and this is reserved to be done once the mediation/settlement fails. In that event, the Family Courts are expected to issue notice under Rule 4A(5) of the Rules, which shall have the Original Petition also annexed to it; and then the matter will have to be decided on its merits.

2. We have begun the judgment with the afore preface because, the specific case of the petitioners is that they received a notice in Form 8 - which is to say under the ambit of Rule 4A(2) of the Rules, producing the same as Ext.P1 – but that the learned Family Court has not yet issued any order asking the parties to mediate, nor has it issued to them a summons under 4A(5) of the Rules, appending the Original Petition. They assert that, therefore, they are now under a complete loss as to what the claim against them is; but that, in the meanwhile, the Trial Court has issued the impugned Ext.P6 order, on the application of the respondents herein, appointing an Advocate Commissioner to take custody of the gold ornaments in the bank locker. They say that they apprehend that the same will now be handed over to her, in spite of the fact that no proceedings as afore has been even initiated.

3. Sri. Lekshmi S. Sekher – learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that the infraction of the procedural requirements as afore is now prejudicing her clients very intently because, they would be left without any remedy, including to contend that the gold ornaments in the locker are theirs or otherwise, because they do not even have a copy of the Original Petition as of now, thus being incapacitated from filing a counter pleading in their defence. She, therefore, prayed that Ext.P6 be set aside.

4. The afore submissions were, however, refuted by Sri. Premchand, saying that his clients have filed I.A. No. 2/2024 seeking the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the joint locker, which has been allowed; and that this was necessary because, otherwise, the petitioners herein would have taken away the same and misappropriated it. He pointed out that the Commissioner has identified the items and has filed a report; and that it is only thereafter, that the learned Trial Court has issued Ext.P6 order, allowing his clients to be in custody of the same as an interim measure. Sri.Prem chand then asserted that the entire gold in the bank locker belongs to his client; and that the petitioners do not even have a whispering claim that it is theirs. He, therefore, prayed that Ext.P6 be left uninterdicted.

5. Smt. Lekshmi S. Sekher, however, responded to the afore assertion of Sri. Premchand, that the gold in the locker has not been claimed by her clients, saying that such opportunity has not even arisen because, he is yet to receive the Original Petition, to be able to file a counter statement in contest.

6. We notice from the impugned order - as submitted by Sri.Premchand - that an Advocate Commissioner had been earlier appointed, who visited the bank locker and prepared an inventory of the gold ornaments therein. The learned Court has, thereupon, only directed the first respondent herein to file an affidavit specifying the items of gold that are hers; and she has been given an opportunity to do so within the time frame fixed therein.

7. It is at this stage that the petitioners herein have approached this Court with the apprehension that the learned Family Court may allow the gold ornaments