The Family Courts Act, 1984, was enacted to provide a mechanism for the resolution of family disputes in a speedy and amicable manner. Let's evaluate the given options against the provisions of the Act to identify which one is not correct:
The Act intends to promote conciliation and secure speedy settlement of disputes.
This is correct. The main objective of the Family Courts Act is indeed to facilitate conciliation and secure speedy resolution of family disputes.
The appointment of counsellors in family courts is determined by the State Government in consultation with the High Court.
This is correct. According to the Act, the State Government is responsible for the appointment of counsellors and may do so in consultation with the High Court.
The duty of the Family Court is to arrive at a settlement between the parties where it is possible and consistent with the nature and circumstances of the case.
This is correct. Family Courts must strive to settle disputes amicably while considering the specific nature and circumstances of each case.
A person can be appointed as a judge of the Family Court after the attainment of sixty-two years of age.
This is incorrect. According to the Family Courts Act, the eligibility criteria for appointment as a judge typically involves legal expertise and experience, but the age mentioned here does not align with the usual practice, which considers active high court judges or those eligible for such a post, generally not after the age of sixty-two.
From the analysis above, the incorrect statement is: A person can be appointed as a judge of the Family Court after the attainment of sixty-two years of age.
In order to determine which judgment is related to the workings of Family Courts, it is essential to analyze the criterion discussed in the given comprehension. The Family Court's responsibilities include the adjudication of disputes between parties by adhering to statutory norms, maintaining fairness, ensuring natural justice, and following a formal legal procedure. This involves parties filing formal pleadings, framing issues, recording evidence, and providing opportunities for both parties to present their claims.
Considering these factors, the judgment that aligns with the operation and obligations of the Family Courts is:
Aman Lohia v. Kiran Lohia, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 224.
This judgment pertains to Family Courts, which are required to involve prescribed procedures including pleadings, framing of issues, evidence recording, and providing fairness, directly reflecting the given comprehension.
The Family Courts Act, 1984 primarily deals with matrimonial disputes and other family-related matters. However, it does not apply to every aspect of family law. Below is an analysis of the given options to determine which matter is not governed by the Family Courts Act:
Based on this analysis, the Family Courts Act, 1984 does not apply to Adoption under Hindu Law.
The document presents a critique of the United Nations (UN) organization, arguing that it has failed to carry out its charter-mandated tasks, specifically to ”maintain international peace and security” and ”to achieve international cooperation” in solving global problems. The author notes growing public frustration with catastrophic humanitarian situations and the failure of peace-keeping operations, leading to widespread scepticism about the possibility of ”revitalization”.
UN Reform Approaches
Discussions on UN reform are divided into two main categories: the conservative approach and the radical approach.
The conservative view considers the existing Charter ”practically untouchable” and believes in improving ”collective security” as defined in Chapter VII. Key positions include:
The radical approach criticizes the principles of the present system and proposes an overhaul. It reflects increasing doubts about the value of the Charter’s collective security system, especially in intra-State conflicts. Radical proposals include:
The author asserts that no major or minor reform has any chance of being implemented now, primarily because the Charter’s amendment procedures (requiring a two-thirds majority including all five permanent Security Council members) preclude agreement. However, he concludes that the continuing deterioration of the global situation, driven by economic integration, rising inequality, and intra-State conflicts, will inevitably lead the political establishment to define a new global institutional structure. This future debate will become highly political.
“Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act says that when a party to a contract promises to do a certain thing within a specified time but fails to do so, the contract or so much of it as has not been performed, becomes voidable at the option of the promisee if the intention of the parties was, that time should be of the essence of the contract. If time is not the essence of the contract, the contract does not become voidable by the failure to do such thing on or before the specified time but the promisee is entitled to compensation from the promisor for any loss occasioned to him by such failure. Further, if in case of a contract voidable on account of the promisor’s failure to perform his promise within the time agreed and the promisee accepts performance of such promise at any time other than that agreed, the promisee cannot claim compensation for any loss occasioned by the non-performance of the promise at the time agreed, unless, at the time of such acceptance he gives notice to the promisor of his intention to do so.
Sections 73 and 74 deal with consequences of breach of contract. Heading of Sec tion 73 is compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract. When a contract is broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive from the party who has broken the contract compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach or which the parties knew when they made the contract to be likely to result from the breach of it. On the other hand, Section 74 deals with compen sation for breach of contract where penalty is stipulated for. When a contract is broken, if a sum is mentioned in the contract as the amount to be paid in case of such breach or if the contract contains any other stipulation by way of penalty, the party complaining of the breach is entitled whether or not actually damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby, to receive from the party who has broken the contract reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount so named or the penalty stipulated for.”
tracted from: Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited v Software Technol ogy Parks of India 2025 INSC 574
“Law treats all contracts with equal respect and unless a contract is proved to suffer from any of the vitiating factors, the terms and conditions have to be enforced regardless of the relative strengths and weakness of the parties.
Section 28 of the Contract Act does not bar exclusive jurisdiction clauses. What has been barred is the absolute restriction of any party from approaching a legal forum. The right to legal adjudication cannot be taken away from any party through contract but can be relegated to a set of Courts for the ease of the parties. In the present dispute, the clause does not take away the right of the employee to pursue a legal claim but only restricts the employee to pursue those claims before the courts in Mumbai alone.
... the Court must already have jurisdiction to entertain such a legal claim. This limb pertains to the fact that a contract cannot confer jurisdiction on a court that did not have such a jurisdiction in the first place.”
Extracted from: Rakesh Kumar Verma v HDFC Bank Ltd 2025 INSC 473