Mandatory Conciliation Protocols in Family Courts Must Be Strictly Followed: Patna High Court - 2025-06-24

Beyond Adversarial Battles: Patna High Court Reinvigorates Conciliation Mandate

In a significant move emphasizing the humanitarian and remedial spirit of the Family Courts Act, 1984 , the Patna High Court has issued a stern directive signaling that family disputes cannot be treated as standard adversarial litigation. The Court, currently presiding over a revision petition challenging a maintenance order, has set its sights on the procedural failures regarding mandatory conciliation in Bihar's Family Courts.

The Conflict at Hand

The petitioner, a husband, challenged a 2024 order by the Principal Judge, Family Court at Madhubani, which directed him to pay Rs. 12,000 per month in maintenance. Beyond the financial dispute, the husband’s counsel raised a fundamental procedural objection: the Family Court had bypassed the mandatory conciliation and mediation process envisioned by the legislature, effectively treating a delicate matrimonial dispute like a standard civil case.

While the wife’s counsel argued that the trial court had previously referred the matter to mediation—a process that ultimately failed—the High Court noted a critical gap: the lack of evidence regarding the structural implementation of the counseling rules themselves.

Legal Mandate and Procedural Duties

The High Court drew sharp attention to ** Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 , which imposes a statutory duty on Judges to assist and persuade parties toward an amicable settlement. This obligation, further detailed in the Family Courts (Patna High Court) Rules, 2000 and the Bihar Family Court Rules, 2011 , mandates the appointment of professional counselors to facilitate reconciliation, explore home environments, and act in a manner that preserves the family unit rather than severing it.

The High Court observed that absent the appointment and active involvement of these counselors, the judicial system risks reverting to a cold, adversarial approach that contradicts the very reason the Family Courts were established.

Key Observations

• On the Objective of the Act: “The main purpose and object of the Family Courts Act, 1984 was to take an endeavour to dispose of the matrimonial discord by process of conciliation and mediation in order to save the family and not by delivery of judgment to severe the family.”
• On Mandatory Duty: “Plain reading of Section 9 postulates that a mandatory duty is cast on the Family Court to make endeavour to assist and persuade the parties in arriving at a settlement.”
• On the Need for Structural Reform: “In violation of the said rules, adversarial justice delivery system cannot be adopted.”

The Court’s Intervention

To address the systemic uncertainty, the High Court has ordered the Registrar General of the Patna High Court to submit a comprehensive report within four weeks. The report must clarify whether counselors have been properly appointed in the various Family Courts across Bihar, their daily caseload, and their remuneration structure.

Concurrently, recognizing the wife’s current state of "destitution" and her reliance on the support of her brothers, the Court granted an interim reprieve. It ordered the husband to pay Rs. 8,000 per month as interim maintenance—a relief granted without prejudice to the final outcome of the case.

Implications for the Future

The ruling serves as a vital reminder that Family Courts are not merely forums for decreeing maintenance or dissolution but are intended to be instruments of social healing. By compelling the administration to account for the presence of professional counselors, the Patna High Court is ensuring that the legislative intent of the 1984 Act is not merely a statement of principle, but a reality on the ground in Bihar.

The outcome of this case will likely set a decisive standard for how maintenance and matrimonial cases are handled procedurally, prioritizing reconciliation as a prerequisite to judicial adjudication across the state.