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.