( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order and decretal order dated 21-7-2004 made in I. A. No. 848 of 2004 in O. P. No. 569 of 2004, on the file of the Principal Family Court at Chennai.

( 2 ) FACTS leading to the Civil Revision petition are as follows : the revision-petitioner has filed O. P. No. 569 of 2004 on the file of the principal family Court, Chennai for divorce. She filed an application in I. A. No. 848 of 2004, in the above O. P. , to restrain the respondents 2 to 5 in any manner, printing or publishing the proceedings relating to the institution of the petition filed by her before the Family Court or carry any other recital as news item in the telecast or their respective publication and to punish them for any such violation. The trial Court dismissed the said I. A. , on the ground that the respondents have not contravened the provisions of Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act and that they are not liable for any punishment under the provisions of the said Act and if they contravene the said provision, action has to be taken before the appropriate forum. Before this Court, the first respondent has agreed that the proceedings may be conducted "in-camera" and that no publicity be given. On the other hand, the press had contended that the provisions of Section 11 of the family Courts Act will have an overriding effect on Section 20 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

( 3 ) EVEN at the stage of interim application of stay, this Court after considering the scope and extent of Section 22 (1) of the hindu Marriage Act and the provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984 at Paragraphs 12 to 16, has held as follows :

"12. The Family Courts Act is only a procedural law and the substantive law relating to family matters may vary from person to person depending on the religion and the respective personal laws. When a Family court deals with the matrimonial disputes of Hindu it has to only enforce the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and Sec. 22 of the said Act in this regard is mandatory. If other personal laws like Christian, parsi or Mohamedan Laws do not provide for in-camera proceedings, whether there can be ban on publication or not will have to be decided on the basis of S. 11. The section confers a discretion on the Judge and also grants a right to the parties to have the proceedings held in-camera. In fact Sec. 11 confers a special right on the party to demand in-camera proceedings and there is no discretion vested with the Court when such a request is made by either party to the dispute. This only strengthens the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even under the Family Courts act, there is no scope for any publication or printing or the proceedings under the said act on the violation of the Press and other electronic media. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 5 that the Family Courts Act, 1984 has got overriding effect on the Hindu Marriage act, 1955 is not sustainable. 13. Section 22 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 recognizes the "right to privacy between the parties in a proceedings conducted under the Hindu Marriage Act, it has been clearly mentioned in Sec. 22 of the said Act that the proceedings under the Act should be conducted in-camera and shall not be lawful for any person to print or publish any matter relates to such proceedings and if any one contravenes such bar he is liable for punishment with a fine which may extent to one thousand rupees. 14. Right of Privacy has been recognized by Indian Courts. In Gobind v. State of madhya Pradesh and another, (1975) 2 SCC 148 : (AIR 1975 SC 1378 ). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as follows: "24. Any right to privacy must encompass and protect the personal intimacies of the home, the family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing. This catalogue approach to the question is obviously not as instructive as it does not give analytical picture of the distinctive