Brijesh Kumari v Union of India

Facts

• Brijesh Kumari was involved in a matrimonial dispute before a Family Court
• Under S.13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, parties cannot engage lawyers without court permission
• Brijesh argued that the complete exclusion of lawyers violated her right to fair hearing under Art. 14/21
• The opposing party had superior knowledge and resources

Issue

1. Whether the exclusion of legal representation under S.13 of the Family Courts Act violates the right to fair hearing, particularly where one party has disproportionate power or knowledge.

Held

• S.13 is not an absolute bar on legal representation; it vests discretion in the court.
• The court should exercise discretion liberally in granting permission.
• Permission should be granted where a party would be substantially prejudiced without representation.
• Factors: complexity of issues, power imbalance, ability of party to articulate, opposing party's resources.
• The purpose of S.13 is to reduce adversarial nature, not to deny fair hearing.

Ratio Decidendi

The restriction on legal representation in Family Courts serves the purpose of reducing adversarial litigation. However, it cannot be applied so rigidly as to deny fair hearing. Courts must exercise discretion liberally, especially where power imbalances exist.