IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3389 of 2008 Between: Smt. Nadella Swapna … Petitioner AND The Union of India, rep., by its Principal Secretary of Law and Legislative Affairs, New Delhi & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Smt. S. Lakshmi Prameela Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri N. Subba Reddy, Senior Counsel for Sri P.B. Vijay Kumar This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3389 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not establishing Family Courts in each District in Andhra Pradesh or in not dealing with the family matters and in particular in disposing of O.P.No.90 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. The petitioner also sought for a direction to respondent No.2 to establish Family Court at Anantapur District or extend the provisions of Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short, ‘the 1984 Act’) The petitioner is the wife of respondent No.3. Matrimonial disputes arose between them leading to filing of O.P.No.90 of 2007 by respondent No.3 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur under Section 13 (1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the 1955 Act’) for divorce. The petitioner filed O.P.No.11 of 2008 under Section 9 of the 1984 Act for restitution of conjugal rights against respondent No.3. Both the O.Ps. are pending before the same Court. The trial has commenced in the said proceedings. At this stage, the present writ petition is filed for the abovementioned reliefs. A perusal of the affidavit shows that the petitioner is mainly aggrieved by the lack of initiative on the part of the Court before which the two O.Ps. are pending in ensuring reconciliation of the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3. The petitioner appears to be of the view that had a Family Court established under the provisions of the 1984 Act, tried the pending cases, the provisions of Section 9 would have been made applicable for amicable settlement between the petitioner and respondent No.3. Heard Smt. S. Lakshmi Prameela, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Subba Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Dr. P.B. Vijay Kumar for respondent No.3. Section 3 of the 1984 Act reads as under: “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, establish for every area in the State comprising a 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 extent and may, at any time, increase, reduce or alter, such limits.” From the above-reproduced provision, it is evident that establishment of Family Courts in every area in the State comprising city or town whose population exceeds one million is mandatory while discretion is vested in the State concerned to establish such Family Courts in other areas. Thus, in the absence of any legislative mandate, making it obligatory on the part of the State to establish Family Courts all over the State, irrespective of the population, this Court is not inclined to issue any writ of mandamus to establish a Family Court at Anantapur, the population of which is admittedly less than one million. Irrespective of whether a Family Court tries the matrimonial disputes or the common law, Court established under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 adjudicates the said disputes, the substantive Act governing such disputes is the 1955 Act. However, this Court is conscious of the fact that the 1984 Act envisages certain provisions pertaining to procedural aspects governing the proceedings relating to family disputes and one such provision is Section 9 of the 1984 Act, which reads as under: “ 9 . Duty of Family Court to make efforts for settlement:- (1) In every suit or proceeding, endeavour shall be made by the Family Court in the first instance, where it is possible to do so consistent with the nature and circumstances of the case, to assist and persuade the parties in arriving at a settlement in respect of the subject matter of the suit or proceeding and for this purpose a Family Court may, subject to any rules made by the High Court, follow such procedure as it may deem fit. (2) If, in any suit or proceeding, at any stage it appears to the Family Court that there is a reasonable possibility of a settlement between the parties, the Family Court may adjourn the proceedings for such period as it thinks fit to enable attempts to be made to effect such a settlement. (3) The power conferred by sub-section shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other power of the Family Court to adjourn the proceedings.” Section 23 (2) of the 1955 Act, which is in similar terms with Section 9 of the 1984 Act, reads as under: “Before proceeding to grant any relief under this Act, it shall be the duty of the Court in the first instance, in every case where it is possible so to do consistently with the nature and circumstances of the case to make every endeavour to bring about a reconciliation between the parties.” Therefore, even if a civil Court other than Family Courts tries the matrimonial disputes, it shall make every endeavour to bring about reconciliation between the parties before proceeding to grant any relief under the Act. Therefore, the petitioner does not suffer any disadvantage by the civil Court trying the pending disputes and under the abovementioned provision it is incumbent upon the learned Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur to make efforts to bring reconciliation between the parties before proceeding to adjudicate the cases on merits. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the direction to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur to follow the provisions of Section 23 (2) of the 1955 Act before proceeding with the case on merits. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition above, WPMP.Nos.4405 and 4406 of 2008 and WVMP.No.865 of 2008 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 18.03.2008 ES