1. Nature and Objective of Procedure

The procedural framework of Family Courts is designed around three core principles:

(a) Conciliation over confrontation

Under Section 9, the Family Court must actively endeavour to bring about settlement between parties before proceeding with trial.

(b) Informal procedure

Family Courts are not strictly bound by technical rules of procedure and evidence.

(c) Speedy and child-centric justice

Focus is on welfare of children, dignity of parties, and quick disposal rather than technical adjudication.

2. Statutory Procedural Framework

(A) Section 9 – Duty to Promote Settlement

The court must:

• Try reconciliation at every stage
• Refer parties to counselling or mediation
• Adjourn proceedings if settlement is possible

This makes Family Courts conciliation-driven tribunals rather than purely adversarial courts.

(B) Section 10 – Procedure Generally

This is the core procedural provision:

• Family Court is guided by principles of natural justice
• It may evolve its own procedure
• It is not rigidly bound by:
  • Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)
  • Indian Evidence Act (though principles apply broadly)
• It can receive evidence in an informal manner (affidavits, counselling reports, etc.)

This gives judges wide discretion to ensure justice.

(C) Section 11 – In Camera Proceedings

• Proceedings are held in camera (closed court)
• Ensures:
  • Privacy of parties
  • Protection of children
  • Confidentiality in sensitive matrimonial disputes

(D) Section 12 – Assistance of Counsellors

• Court may appoint medical/psychological/social welfare experts
• Counsellors assist in:
  • reconciliation
  • custody evaluation
  • welfare reports

This introduces a social justice model of adjudication.

(E) Section 13 – Legal Representation

• Parties do not have an automatic right to lawyers
• Court may:
  • Permit legal representation
  • Restrict lawyers to maintain informality

(F) Section 14 – Relaxation of Evidence Rules

• Family Court can accept:
  • hearsay evidence
  • informal documentary material
  • counselling reports
• Provided it is relevant to justice

This is a major deviation from the strict Indian Evidence Act regime.

(G) Section 15 – Record of Evidence

• Evidence may be recorded in a summary manner
• Avoids lengthy deposition processes

3. Key Procedural Features (Summary)

1. Flexible procedure (not CPC-bound)

2. Mandatory reconciliation stage

3. Confidential hearings (in camera)

4. Social-welfare orientation

5. Reduced emphasis on technical evidence rules

6. Judicial discretion in procedure

4. Important Case Laws (At least 6)

1. Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat (1985)

• Supreme Court emphasised the special nature of Family Courts
• Held that procedure must be less formal and justice-oriented
• Recognised need for interim maintenance and speedy relief

2. Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena (2014)

• Court criticised delay in maintenance cases
• Held Family Courts must adopt a pragmatic and humane approach
• Emphasised that procedural delays defeat the purpose of the Act

3. Shah Bano Begum v. Mohd. Ahmed Khan (1985) (contextual relevance)

• Though under Section 125 CrPC, it influenced Family Courts
• Reinforced importance of maintenance as a social justice measure
• Helped shape Family Court jurisdiction under Section 7(2)

4. Dawalsab v. Khajasab (2009)

• Supreme Court held Family Courts have exclusive jurisdiction in maintenance matters
• Reinforced procedural transfer of disputes to Family Courts under Section 7 & 8

5. R. Durga Prasad v. Union of India

• Explained that establishment of Family Courts removes jurisdiction of civil courts
• Emphasised procedural exclusivity and specialised adjudication

6. Komal S. Padukone v. Principal Judge, Family Court (1999)

• Held denial of legal representation must be balanced with fairness
• Court recognised importance of natural justice in Family Court procedure

7. Javeeda Sherieff v. Mohd. Hafeez (1993)

• Clarified that once Family Court is established:
  • Civil court jurisdiction is excluded (Section 8)
• Strengthened procedural exclusivity of Family Courts

5. Judicial Interpretation of Procedural Framework

Courts consistently interpret Family Court procedure as:

(a) Welfare-oriented

Best interest of children and family harmony is central.

(b) Non-adversarial

Judge plays a mediator + adjudicator role.

(c) Flexible but fair

Procedural informality cannot violate natural justice.

6. Conclusion

The procedural framework under the Family Courts Act, 1984 represents a hybrid legal system combining adjudication with conciliation. It departs from traditional civil procedure by:

• prioritising settlement over litigation
• ensuring privacy and informality
• allowing flexible evidentiary rules
• empowering judges with wide procedural discretion

Judicial decisions consistently reinforce that Family Courts are not merely dispute-resolution bodies but welfare-oriented institutions aimed at restoring family harmony while ensuring justice.