Section 17 of the Family Courts Act plays a pivotal role in the adjudication of family matters. This section provides Family Courts with procedural flexibility, ensuring swift justice in disputes involving marriage, maintenance, custody, and other family-related issues. This article delves into the essence of Section 17, its implications, and relevant case law to illustrate its practical application.
What is Section 17 of the Family Courts Act?
Section 17 states that the strict procedural rules of the Evidence Act and the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) do not bind Family Courts. Instead, these courts are allowed to adopt their procedures as deemed necessary to achieve the purpose of speedy and cost-effective justice. This flexibility ensures that Family Courts focus on the substantive resolution of disputes rather than being bogged down by technicalities.
The provision typically reads as follows:
“The provisions of the Evidence Act and the Code of Civil Procedure shall not apply to proceedings before a Family Court, but the Family Court shall be guided by the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.”
What is Section 17 of the Family Court Act?
Purpose and Scope
The rationale behind Section 17 is twofold:
Expeditious Proceedings: Family matters often involve emotional and financial stress. By relaxing procedural constraints, the Family Court can expedite hearings and judgments.
Focus on Substantive Justice: The flexibility allows the court to prioritize the best interests of the parties, especially children, over strict adherence to procedural norms.
This section ensures that Family Courts resolve disputes in a manner that is just, fair, and equitable.
Case Law Analysis
1. Muhammad Iqbal v. Parveen Akhtar (2016 SCMR 1735)
In this case, the Supreme Court of Pakistan emphasized that Family Courts are not bound by procedural technicalities. The Court observed that the primary objective of these courts is to resolve disputes expeditiously while upholding justice. The Court highlighted the importance of applying the principles of equity and good conscience.
2. Abdul Wahab v. Mst. Salma (PLD 2010 Lahore 78)
The Lahore High Court ruled that even though Family Courts are not bound by the CPC, the principles enshrined in the CPC and Evidence Act can still guide the proceedings if they promote fairness. In this case, the Court ensured that procedural flexibility was used to secure substantive justice.
3. Shabana Naz v. Asadullah (2018 SCMR 1354)
This case focused on child custody, and the Court relied heavily on the principles of justice and equity rather than strict procedural norms. It upheld the Family Court’s decision, stating that procedural lapses should not overshadow the welfare of the child.You may like this
Implications of Section 17
Advantages
Simplified Procedure: Parties can present their cases without navigating the complexities of traditional legal systems.
Reduced Delays: Eliminating procedural hurdles accelerates the resolution process.
Focus on Fair Outcomes: Courts can adapt their methods to achieve equitable results.
Challenges
Risk of Subjectivity: Flexibility might lead to inconsistent decisions if not carefully managed.
Lack of Uniformity: The absence of strict procedural rules may result in variations in judicial approaches.
Conclusion
Section 17 of the Family Courts Act is a cornerstone provision that empowers Family Courts to prioritize justice over procedural rigidity. By focusing on the principles of equity and good conscience, Family Courts can resolve disputes in a manner that upholds the dignity and welfare of families. Case law demonstrates that courts have used this flexibility effectively, ensuring fairness while maintaining a balance between procedural norms and substantive justice.
For those involved in family disputes, Section 17 offers a streamlined and equitable judicial process, making it a crucial feature of family law jurisprudence. Read more
