Family Courts Cannot Treat Legal Aid As Formality: Chhattisgarh HC Directs Courts To Maintain Expert Panels
Court holds failure to provide free legal assistance or appoint amicus violates fair trial and access to justice
Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, Chhattisgarh High Court
The Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside an ex parte decree of divorce passed by a Family Court, holding that the proceedings were vitiated by serious procedural irregularities, including the absence of a duly fixed hearing date and the failure to provide free legal aid or appoint an amicus-curiae for an indigent litigant. The bench further held that referring the litigant to the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) without ensuring actual and timely legal representation, amounts to a mechanical formality and defeats the object of the statute.
The High Court thus issued categorical directions to all Family Courts in Chhattisgarh to strictly comply with Rule 14 of the Family Courts Rules, 2007 by constituting and maintaining a separate panel of legal experts without further delay. It held that where a party is unable to engage counsel and the interest of justice so demands, the Family Court must itself assign an advocate from its panel.
While directing a copy of this judgment be sent to all the Family Courts of the State to follow Rule 14(1) of the Chhattisgarh Family Courts Rules, 2007, in its letter and spirit, a bench of Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal observed, “It has come to our notice that, in actual practice, most of the Family Courts are generally been relying only upon the panel of advocates maintained by the District Legal Services Authority for providing such assistance, without maintaining a separate panel as contemplated under Rule 14(1) of the Rules of 2007, which is not proper. Merely recording in an order that the litigant may approach to the District Legal Services Authority for legal aid and legal assistance without ensuring actual and timely legal representation, defeats the purpose of the statutory mandate. The responsibility cast upon the Family Court(s) cannot be treated as an empty formality and must be discharged in a direct and effective manner”.
“Accordingly, we direct the Family Courts in the State of Chhattisgarh who have not maintained a list of legal experts as mentioned in Rule 14 (1) of the Rules of 2007 to constitute and maintain a separate panel of advocates expeditiously without further delay as mandated by the Rules of 2007 and whenever it is found that a party is unable to engage an advocate and interest of justice so requires, as per Rule 14(2) of the Rules of 2007, the Family Court shall itself assign a legal expert from its panel so maintained to provide legal assistance, instead of referring the matter to the District Legal Services Authority. The fees payable to such panel advocates shall be borne by the State Government and shall form part of the free legal aid as per Rule 14(3) of the Rules of 2007. This direction is issued to ensure effective delivery of justice and to uphold the constitutional mandate of access to justice in family matters”, the bench further noted.
Advocate Himanshu Kumar Sharma appeared for the appellant and Advocate Shobhit Koshta appeared for the respondent and Senior Advocate Manoj Paranjpe appeared for Amicus Curiae.
The present appeal in the matrimonial dispute arose when the Family Court had proceeded ex-parte against the wife and granted a decree of divorce in favour of the husband.
The appellant-wife contended that she was financially incapable of engaging a lawyer and had specifically sought time to arrange legal assistance, but the Family Court neither provided free legal aid nor appointed an amicus-curiae to represent her.
The High Court thus, after examining the record, noted that the matter was not listed for final hearing on the date when the Family Court proceeded ex-parte and recorded evidence. The Bench held that proceeding ex-parte on a date not fixed for hearing violated basic principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.
The Court further emphasised that Family Courts, by their very nature and statutory mandate under the Family Courts Act, 1984, are required to adopt a proactive and welfare-oriented approach. When a party expresses inability to engage counsel due to financial hardship, the Court is under an obligation to ensure legal representation through free legal aid or by appointing an amicus-curiae at State expense.
In view of the above infirmities, the bench set aside the impugned divorce decree and remanded the matter to the Family Court for fresh adjudication, directing that the appellant-wife be afforded proper legal assistance and a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
Cause Title: X v. Y [Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:536-DB]
Appearances:
Appellant: Himanshu Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
Respondent: Shobhit Koshta, Senior Advocate Manoj Paranjpe, Rishabh Gupta, Advocates.