Abstract
Family disputes involve deep dimensions of person, emotion, and society that set them apart from ordinary civil or commercial litigation. In recognition, the Family Courts Act, 1984, was passed with a view to encouraging conciliation, Counselling, and expedient disposal of matrimonial and family-related disputes through processes less adversarial and more humane. Despite this intent of the legislation, Family Courts operationally remain plagued by structural, procedural, and cultural issues deeply at variance with their people-oriented mandate. Chronic delays, uneven geographical dispersion, inadequate multidisciplinary support, restricted availability of trained counsellors and mediators, and adversarial practices dominated by lawyers have all hampered the functioning of Family Courts in securing fair, timely, and humane justice.
The article critically analyses how the state Family Courts are functioning in India with an examination of the statutory framework under the Family Courts Act, 1984, judicial decisions, policy initiatives on mediation, and publicly available governmental data from the Department of Justice and the National Judicial Data Grid. It also interacts with existing literature on family mediation, therapeutic jurisprudence, trauma-informed legal practice, and family justice reform. The study follows a doctrinal and policy-oriented methodology sans primary empirical research to identify systemic gaps and institutional limitations.
This article makes a case for a fresh commitment to a human-centered model of family justice with dignity, access, emotional well-being, and child-centered outcomes at its heart. It advocates for practical reforms grounded in the law, involving enhanced institutional capacity, standardized court-annexed mediation, trauma-informed judicial training, integration of legal aid with social services, child-friendly court infrastructure, and data-driven accountability mechanisms. It reiterates that Family Courts can fulfill constitutional values of dignity, equality, and access to justice in perhaps the most intimate sphere of social life-that of the family-by reorienting themselves as holistic systems of care rather than purely being adjudicatory forums.