1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 73 OF 2005 Dr. Ashutosh Govind Prabhu Dessai, residing at I/4 Namrata Building, Cardozo Wado, Taleigao, Goa – 403 002. ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Goa through its Chief Secretary, with office at Porvorim, Bardez, Goa. 2. Dr. Roopali Ashutosh Prabhu Dessai, also known as Roopali G. N. Bhatcar, residing at 2/12 Geetanjali, behind Maruti Showroom, Campal, Panaji, Goa. (Respondent No.2 is discharged vide Order dated 12-12-2005). ... Respondents Ms. Emera Remedios, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Ms. R. Chodankar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM : A. P. DESHPANDE & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. DATE : 23RD OCTOBER, 2008. 2 ORAL: JUDGMENT(Per A. P. DESHPANDE, J.) Heard. 2. The Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus against Respondent No.1, the State of Goa to establish a Family Court in Goa. The other prayers made in the petition have already been rejected by an Order dated 24-10-2005. 3. An additional affidavit in reply dated 8-12-2003 has been filed in Writ Petition No.568 of 2003 wherein the figures of pendency of Matrimonial cases in various Courts in Goa are stated. The learned Advocate General makes a request to treat the affidavit in reply filed in Writ Petition No.568 of 2003 as an affidavit in the present petition to demonstrate the pendency of cases. The request is granted. 4. According to the learned Advocate General the State Government has no intention to establish a Family Court for the present. It is then submitted that very few Matrimonial and related cases are pending and it would be futile to establish a Family Court. Establishing a Family Court would not benefit the litigants but would cause inconvenience to the litigants from Tahasil places. The relief claimed in the petition is thus opposed by further contending that it is neither desirable nor convenient to establish the Family Court. 3 5. Section 3 of the Family Court Act, 1984 reads thus:- “Establishment of Family Courts.-(1) For the purpose of exercising the jurisdiction and powers conferred on a Family Court by this Act, the State Government, after consultation with the High Court, and by notification,- (a) shall, as soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, established for every area in the State comprising city or town whose population exceeds one million, a Family Court; (b) may establish Family Courts for such other areas in the State as it may deem necessary. (2) The State Government shall, after consultation with the High Court, specify, by notification, the local limits of the area to which the jurisdiction of a Family Court shall extend and may, at any time, increase, reduce or alter such limits”. 6. Section 3(1)(a) obliges the State Government to establish for every area in the State comprising city or town where the population exceeds one million. No city or town in Goa is having a population exceeding one million is an undisputed and admitted fact. In the absence of the required population of one million there is no statutory obligation on the State to establish a Family Court. Section 3(1)(b) vests the State Government with a discretion to establish Family Court in a situation not covered by Section 3(1)(a). In exercise of its discretion the State Government has taken a conscious decision not to establish a Family Court. There is no challenge to the exercise of discretion so also the decision reached by the State Government. The Writ Petition is cryptic and devoid of any 4 particulars. The Petitioner has failed to make out any case. Hence, no mandamus can be issued against the State Government to establish a Family Court. 7. In the result, there being no merit in the petition the same is dismissed. s 8. It is made clear that it shall be open for the State to take appropriate decision in future depending upon the changed circumstance. A. P. DESHPANDE, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD