Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. In our opinion, the correct approach should be that the Family Court should not permit lawyers to appear before it when it is trying to seek reconciliation between the parties under Section 9 of the Family Courts Act. It may be mentioned that it is the first duty of the Court hearing matrimonial cases to try to reconcile the parties as envisaged by Section 9 of the Act. At this stage, lawyers are not at all necessary, and it is for the Court to try to persuade the husband and wife to get reconciled. Lawyers may also not be allowed to appear in cases under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act (divorce by mutual consent). However, if the reconciliation attempt falls, and the matter has to be adjudicated, in our opinion, the Court should ordinarily allow lawyers to appear on behalf of the parties. This is necessary because Divorce Law and other Family Law has now become a complicated branch of law, and an ordinary layman cannot be expected to know this law. It may be mentioned that there is a catena of decisions both in England and India on this branch of law, and without a knowledge of the same, a party cannot properly represent himself/herself in the case, and only a trained lawyer can do so. For example, Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act provides that separation for two years is a ground for divorce. A layman would probably think that proof of two years of physical separation alone is required for divorce on this ground, but the case law on this point is that mere physical separation for 2 years is not sufficient and the petitioner has also to prove animus deserendi, i.e., intention to bring cohabitation permanently to an end. Similarly, cruelty is a ground for divorce, and the layman would ordinarily regard cruelly to mean physical cruelty, but by Judicial decisions. It has been interpreted to mean mental cruelty also. There is a catena of case law on this subject, and no layman can be expected to know this case law as it takes years to study and understand it. Moreover, a layman would be ignorant of procedural rules also. Hence it is obvious that a layman cannot ordinarily represent himself properly in such cases. Representation by lawyers will not only be of great assistance to the parties, it will also be of great assistance to the Court to do Justice expeditiously. Some people say that lawyers will cause delay in the proceedings. In our opinion, far from delaying the proceedings, a lawyer will greatly expedite it because, by his knowledge of law and procedure and his training, he can quickly come to the relevant points. Moreover, lawyers know the art of the cross-examination, and the rules of procedure, which a layman does not. Hence we are of the opinion that the discretion in granting/refusing representation by lawyers must be exercised in the manner aforementioned, namely, that at the stage when the Court is trying to reconcile the parties or when divorce is sought by mutual consent, no lawyer should ordinarily be permitted, but otherwise when the matter is being adjudicated, lawyers should ordinarily be allowed to represent the parties.