The tragic incident of Atul Subhash, a Bengaluru-based technology expert who allegedly took his own life due to mounting stress caused by legal battles in family court, has sparked much debate on the fairness and effectiveness of India’s judicial system (“The Family Court”) in settling family disputes. While family courts were established to ensure faster and more amicable settlements, incidents like this highlight the inherent flaws that need to be addressed immediately. The current legislation needs a review and the introduction of wide reforms to ensure equity for all stakeholders, especially in delicate marital issues.
Magnificent view as to the existing legal framework (Family Courts Act, 1984): Scaling on the Constitutional measures
Family courts in India operate under the provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The Act was enacted with the intent of promoting conciliation and speedy disposal of the cases related to marriage, child custody, and maintenance. Section 9 of the Act mandates that the family courts shall make efforts to settle the disputes amicably before proceeding with the formal hearings. The philosophy is to reduce contentious litigation and promote reconciliation as far as possible.
Despite these provisions, the reality often deviates from the ideal. Cases that include allegations of dowry harassment, domestic violence, and maintenance cases sometimes become protracted legal battles that cause psychological and economic distress to both parties. This has led to calls for urgent reforms that make the process easier and more just for all parties regardless of gender. Moreover, it underscores the importance of the multifaceted aspects, including human dignity, of constitutional provisions such as art. 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court explicitly stated in Francis vs. Union Territory (1981) that the right to life encompasses the right to live with human dignity, a principle that appears to be violated by the family court in the victim’s case. Mere, taking shelter under the disguise of “Procedure Established by the Law” would vitiate the true scope of right to life and the vice of any legislation is any way supported by the constitution because the procedure must be “Just”, “Fair” and “Reasonable” as enumerated by the Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India (1978).
Gender Neutrality and the Need for Balanced Justice
India’s family law has been cantered on protection to women’s rights in statutes like the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) [corresponding to section sec.144 of BNSS, 2023] pertaining to maintenance. Since historically women were oppressed, protection for women’s rights has been one of the objectives. The problem lies with the lack of corresponding safety measures when false accusations are given against men or undue harassment of men.
Section 498A of the IPC,1860 (corresponding to sec.85 of BNS,2023) relating to cruelty by husband or his relatives to a woman, is prone to abuse. In this scenario, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held, in Rajesh Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2017), held and accepted the abuse of the very said Section 498A with the guidelines not to abuse. Despite all the judgments, false accusations prevail resulting in much hassle and hardship for the accused person.
Reforms Needed in Family Courts
1. Gender-Neutral Laws: While protecting women’s rights remains paramount, laws addressing matrimonial disputes and domestic violence should be gender-neutral. The introduction of gender-neutral provisions in BNS,2023 BNSS,2023 would ensure that men and women receive equal protection under the law.
2. Mandatory Mediation and Counselling: The Family Courts Act,1984 already emphasizes conciliation, but enforcement remains weak. Strengthening mandatory mediation and counselling services—with trained professionals who can assess cases objectively—could alleviate unnecessary litigation.
3. Time-Bound Proceedings: Delays in family court cases exacerbate the emotional and financial strain on individuals. Implementing strict timelines for case resolution, as suggested by the Law Commission of India’s 245th Report, could ensure quicker justice.
4. False Allegation Penalties: Introducing stricter penalties under the new criminal laws for filing false cases or making baseless allegations could deter misuse of protective laws. The judiciary should be empowered to act decisively in cases where malice is proven.
5. Mental Health Support: Recognizing the psychological toll of family court disputes, mental health support services should be integrated within the court system. This would provide necessary support to litigants experiencing stress, depression, or trauma.
Judicial Oversight and Accountability
Judicial procedures in family courts require greater supervision in order to prevent biases and to ensure justice. The formation of review committees headed by senior judges or independent legal professionals should observe the working of family courts and advise remedial action when required and where necessary.
Conclusion
The tragic case of Atul Subhash shows the stark reminder that the legal systems that ought to implement protectionism can inflict further harm if deployed wrongly or a bit too late. Gender-neutral legislature, efficient mediation facilities and penalty on misuse of legislation are some of the important measures forward for making justice delivery as fair as well as humane as possible. Changes in family courts would be expected to uplift legal procedures and, thus restore public confidence in judiciary capabilities to deliver fair, neutral justice. As, the parliament has the power to change the procedure by enacting a law amending it and when the procedure is so changed it becomes the procedure established by the law and that must be valid in the light of article 21 of Indian Constitution. Hence, it ought to eradicate the vice of the justice delivery system too. The courts are not also to the exclusion of it as the Apex Court of the land has clearly stated in the case of Ram Ekbak Missir vs Ram Niwash Pandey (2002) that it is the duty of the courts to see that neither victim nor the accused suffers by mischief of the investigating agency or staff of the court.
Hence, It is an evolution in Indian law is required that will undertake all these challenges head-on and prevent or avert any further tragedies. Then, justice will be seen as fully served to everybody. Otherwise, it will undermine the ethos of Justice, in the voice of great Martin Luthar King, “Injustice any where is a threat to Justice Everywhere.”
Mr. Sukanta Chakrabarty (Advocate, Calcutta High Court) & Dr. Mainan Ray (Associate Professor of Law, Amity Law School, Kolkata)
