Family Law

Family Courts Act, 1984

— S. 3 — Shifting of Family Court — Power of State — Held, the State may not have any power to shift the Family Court from the city or town whose population exceeds one million — But, a Family Court established at a place having jurisdiction over an area including more than one town or village can be shifted from one place to another within that area, (2006) 6 SCC 162-A

Family Law

Family Courts Act, 1984

— Ss. 3(1)(a) & (b) — Difference between cls. (a) & (b) — Explained, (2006) 6 SCC 162-B

Administrative Law

Subordinate/Delegated legislation

— Notifications/Govt. orders — Power to issue — Scope of — Held, includes power to amend, vary or rescind notifications and orders, (2006) 6 SCC 162-C

Family Law

Family Courts Act, 1984

— S. 3(1)(a) — Shifting of Family Court from a town — Objection raised to, on the basis of application of cl. (a) of S. 3(1) alleging population of the said town to be more than one million — Held, said clause not attracted in the present case in view of the population of the aforesaid town being less than one million, (2006) 6 SCC 162-D

Family Law

Family Courts Act, 1984

— S. 3 — Creation or shifting of Family Court under the 1984 Act which is a federal legislation — Authority of High Court in relation to — Considering administrative control of High Court over subordinate courts under Arts. 235 and 227 of the Constitution and other Acts, held, it could not be said that High Court will have no say at all in the said matter — Constitutional power of High Court to exercise its control over the subordinate courts had not been and could not have been taken away by reason of the provisions of the Family Courts Act — Family Courts cannot be treated to be a class by themselves and cannot be equated with the courts constituted under the Consumer Protection Act — On facts, shifting of Family Court from one place to another by the State concerned accepting recommendations of the High Court in that regard, held, was proper, (2006) 6 SCC 162-E

Constitution of India

— Arts. 235 and 227 — High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts — Scope of — Held, can be exercised in respect of judicial as also in administrative matters, (2006) 6 SCC 162-F

Constitution of India

— Art. 236 — Interpretation clause — Expression <169>District Judge<170> occurring therein — Meaning — Held, it would not only be an officer who has been specified in cl. (a) of Art. 236 but would also be such officer who would otherwise be within the control of the High Court in terms of Art. 235 of the Constitution, (2006) 6 SCC 162-G

Constitution of India

— Sch. VII List III Entry 11-A and Arts. 227 & 235 — Shifting of Court from one place to another — Relevant considerations — Held, interest of litigants should be uppermost while making such a recommendation — State shifting Family Court from one town to another on recommendations of High Court — Propriety of — Lack of space and absence of bare minimum requirements to run court in building where Family Court existing — This causing problems to litigants, advocates, etc. — Said building not suitable to meet requirements of litigants — Hence, considering the said facts, representations of Bar Associations, reports of Judges concerned, number of cases originating from town where the Family Court existing and taking all possible steps to retain the said court in town where it was functioning, High Court recommending shifting of Family Court in the interest of litigants to another town ideally situated geographically for having such court — Held, High Court was justified in doing so — Contention that recommendations made taking into account irrelevant considerations, held on facts, not sustainable, (2006) 6 SCC 162-H

Family Law

Family Courts Act, 1984

— S. 3 — Establishment of Family Courts — Applicability of the State Act concerned governing establishment of courts in that State — Effect of Family Courts Act being a federal legislation — Held, even though the Family Courts Act is a federal legislation, in the absence of a clear provision overriding the provisions of the State Act concerned, the machinery provisions contained therein would remain operative — There was no conflict or repugnancy between the provisions of the said two Acts, (2006) 6 SCC 162-I

Administrative Law

Judicial review

— Grounds for judicial review — Reasonableness of action — Reasonableness and fairness on the part of statutory authority — Constitutional requirement for judging the question of, held, must be considered having regard to the factual matrix obtaining in each case — It cannot be put in a straitjacket formula — It must be considered keeping in view the doctrine of flexibility — Before an action is struck down, the court must be satisfied that a case has been made out for exercise of power of judicial review, (2006) 6 SCC 162-J

Administrative Law

Judicial review

— Grounds for judicial review — Proportionality — Doctrine of — Applicability — Considering inclination of court from doctrine of Wednesbury unreasonableness to doctrine of proportionality, held, doctrine of proportionality must be applied having regard to the purport and object of the Act concerned, (2006) 6 SCC 162-K

Family Law

Family Courts Act, 1984

— S. 3 — Establishment of Family Courts — Duty of State, held, is to provide these courts with adequate facilities and infrastructure — Family Court must have sufficient space for conciliation, a counselling centre, etc. — Considering distinct features and social purpose of Family Court, held, said court requires special attention, (2006) 6 SCC 162-L

Constitution of India

— Sch. VII List III Entries 11-A & 46, List I Entry 95 and List II Entry 65 — Establishment of courts — Duty of State to provide fora for dispute resolution with adequate infrastructure, (2006) 6 SCC 162-M

Family Law

Family Courts Act, 1984

— Object behind enactment of, restated, (2006) 6 SCC 162-N

Words and phrases

— <169>Consultation<170> — Meaning of — Case-law referred to, (2006) 6 SCC 162-O