Madras HC Dismisses Plea Against Section 13 of Family Courts Act Restricting Lawyer Representation

The Madras High Court dismissed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of  Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, which limits a person’s right to have a lawyer represent them in family court cases.

The petitioner argued that Section violated advocates’ right to practice in court as per the Advocates Act, 1961, and burdened litigants. 

However, Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan argued that the matter had been settled by past rulings.

The court relied on precedents from the Bombay HC (Lata d/o Baburao Pimple v. Union of India and Others), Rajasthan HC (Sarala Sharma v. State), and Allahabad HC (Bansidhar v. Seema), holding that Section 13 was constitutional.

The court decided that Section 13 does not completely ban lawyers from representing clients in family courts and, therefore, rejected the petition.