Bombay High Court pulls up Maharashtra government for not setting up sufficient family courts

The Bombay High Court on Thursday pulled up the Maharashtra government for not setting up sufficient family courts in the State and ordered the State to take further steps in that direction. [Tushar Gupta v. Union of India & Ors.].Chief government pleader PP Kakade informed the division bench of Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice SG Chapalgaonkar that the government departments were considering nearly 30 proposals to set up family courts, which included 17 in Mumbai, 4 in Pune and 5 in Nagpur.He added that establishment of family courts involved submission of proposal by the High Court, scrutiny by the law department, finance department and approval by several other departments.“When steps are not to be taken, correspondence is engaged in. This is only to while away time. You provide the infrastructure. We will see that family courts are housed there. Some further steps have to be taken,” the bench stated in the hearing. The Court asked Kakade to update it on the status of various proposals during the next hearing that is on January 12..The Bench was hearing a public interest litigation filed by one Tushar Gupta, a businessman, who said at least one family court is required for every city with a population of over a million, according to the Family Courts Act. As a student of law, Gupta discovered through RTI query, that the total number of family courts in Maharashtra is 19 when it should be 39 as per law. He pleaded that in the family court at Mumbai, there were more than 5,000 divorce cases pending and there were only seven family court judges. Considering the 2011 census, six more judges were required and that requirement may have risen considering the increase in population.The High Court had suggested in an earlier hearing that the State could start with one family court per district. .In the hearing yesterday, Kakade submitted that the High Court administration was required to inform the State about the accommodation of judges. “You (state) want the high court to say whether land is available or not? It should be the other way round. You should provide the infrastructure” the Bench said.