The Madras High Court emphasized that "courts exist for the benefit of litigants, not the other way around." It expressed disapproval of the inflexible procedures often followed by family courts, which cause unnecessary inconvenience to those seeking justice.

Justice V. Lakshminarayanan has issued detailed guidelines for family courts across the state, emphasizing that the physical appearance of parties should not be mandatory for every hearing. Instead, he directed that virtual appearances be allowed.

The judge took strong exception to complaints that family court procedures were causing significant distress to litigants, particularly by preventing representation through lawyers or power of attorneys and insisting on personal appearances, even for routine tasks such as making copy applications.

It was also brought to the judge's attention that there are eight family courts in Chennai alone, with between 800 and 1,500 litigants visiting the family court complex daily, resulting in severe overcrowding.

Acknowledging the difficulties faced by litigants, the judge noted that the Family Courts Act of 1984 was designed to facilitate the speedy resolution of matrimonial disputes by streamlining procedures. He highlighted that Section 13 of the Act specifies that no party is entitled, as a matter of right, to be represented by an advocate.

The intent behind this provision was to prevent family court proceedings from becoming adversarial and to minimize the potential for lawyers to delay cases. However, the judge clarified that while this provision regulates, it does not entirely prohibit the appearance of lawyers in family courts.

“Even the most educated and privileged litigants may not necessarily be adept with the legal procedure and formalities,” the judge said and clarified that litigants could engage lawyers to draft the petitions and also to represent them before the family courts after obtaining permission from the court concerned.

Justice Lakshminarayanan went on to state: “The insistence on personal attendance of the litigants for every hearing is incongruent with the spirit of the Act and the object it seeks to achieve.” Therefore, he impressed upon the need for the family courts to adopt a liberal approach while considering applications for appointment of power of attorneys and for virtual appearance.

“Family Court was established as a separate institution to be more empathetic to the physical, emotional, and financial distress of the litigants. Even for the Family Courts, the personal attendance of the litigants during every hearing, including the procedural hearings, would tend to contribute to their inefficiency and delay in proceedings as the attendance of the litigants cannot always be guaranteed and would lead to more disorder within the court premises,” the judge observed.

“It is also inhumane to presume that the litigants are placed in such circumstances that they are always available at the beck and call of the Family Court. There are a variety of reasons that could disable a party from personally attending the court proceedings ranging from professional commitments, health issues, overseas travel, etc. In such circumstances, the Family Court would not be justified in directing the parties to personally appear before it for any such direction would become simply adverse to the litigants. Again to reiterate, the litigants are not for the courts, but the courts are for the litigants,” the judge added.