Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 138 (KER)

Karunakaran. M v. Vasanthi K.

2009-02-13

R.BASANT

body2009
Judgment: What is the type of memorandum/report that a Counsellor shall submit to the Family Court? To what use can the court put such memorandum/report? Can the information gathered by the Counsellor, in the course of conciliation, be included in such memorandum/report? Will not the provisions relating to confidentiality of the communications in the course of counselling be defeated and frustrated if the Counsellor submits such an exhaustive memorandum/report giving details of all what transpired during the counselling to the Family Court and the Family Court uses the same to resolve the /is between the parties before it? What are the safe rules which a Counsellor submitting memorandum/report should follow? How and in what manner can Family Courts make use of such memorandum/report? These questions arise for consideration before me in this case. Considering the importance of the questions, in addition to the counsel appearing forthe parties, I requested the learned counsel Mr. C.S. Dias and Smt. Lekha Suresh to assist me as amicus curiae to resolve the above questions. I place on record my appreciation for the academic research done by Advocates Mr. C.S. Dias and Smt. Lekha Suresh and counsel for both sides to assist this Court for a proper resolution of the questions raised. 2. To thecrucial and vital facts first. The petitioner has suffered an order under 5.125 Cr.PC, obliging him to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.750/- to the claimants - his wife and minor child respectively. Marriage, paternity and separate residence are all admitted. The petitioner, in the counter statement filed by him, did not make a specific offer to maintain his wife on condition that she lives with him. Later, in the course of the proceedings, he appears to have made such an offer. The wife resisted the offer for living together on the ground that the offer is not bona fide and that the petitioner is having an illicit relationship with one Sathi - a neighbour. 3. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The rival contestants examined themselves as P.W.1 and R.W.1. Exts.B1 and B2 were marked. Ext.B1 is a document to show that the petitioner/husband had suffered injuries in a motor accident. Ext.B2 is an agreement allegedly executed by the parents of the wife who agreed to assign some property in her name. 4. 3. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The rival contestants examined themselves as P.W.1 and R.W.1. Exts.B1 and B2 were marked. Ext.B1 is a document to show that the petitioner/husband had suffered injuries in a motor accident. Ext.B2 is an agreement allegedly executed by the parents of the wife who agreed to assign some property in her name. 4. The learned Judge of the Family Court considered the rival contentions and came to the conclusion that the petitioner is liable to pay maintenance to his wife and child. The court took the view that the wife is justified in insisting on separate residence. To come to this conclusion, the learned Judge copiously relied on the memorandum/report dated 28.3.2006 submitted by the Counsellor after the effort of counselling and conciliation had failed. I think it will be advantageous straightaway to refer to the relevant observations made by the learned Judge in the impugned order. Fundamental objections are taken against the observations made by the learned Judge in the order. In para.6, the learned Judge observed as follows: "6. This Court has attempted several times to resolve the dispute between the parties. The parties were referred to the Counsellor. As per the report dated 28.3.2006 the respondent was amenable to give 15 cents of his landed property to his daughter because he is unable to provide maintenance otherwise to the petitioners. He had met with an accident and cannot go for any work. The petitioner is unwilling to accept the 15 cents of land. She wants the respondent to take her back or provide monthly maintenance. The Counsellor reports that the respondent was very adamant in his decision and was also not amenable for providing maintenance to her. Petitioner suspected that the respondent is having an illicit relationship with another lady in the neighbourhood. According to her, as reported by the Counsellor that lady had rang up and told her to leave the house of the respondent. According to her this was the only reason why the respondent was unwilling to take her back. The Counsellor also reports of a dispute as reported by the petitioner, between her father and the respondent regarding a shop which he had agreed to give to the respondent. It is reported that petitioners father did not give the space for the shop as demanded by him and that led to the separation. The Counsellor also reports of a dispute as reported by the petitioner, between her father and the respondent regarding a shop which he had agreed to give to the respondent. It is reported that petitioners father did not give the space for the shop as demanded by him and that led to the separation. The Counsellor also reports that it was the second marriage of both the petitioner and respondent. While the petitioner had no children in the earlier marriage, the respondent has a child in the previous marriage. The Counsellor concludes her report by stating that the petitioner was very much interested for a reconciliation. With the report the matter was referred backto the court." 5. In para.7, while discussing the acceptability of the rival contentions, the learned Judge of the Family Court proceeded to make the following observations: "7. ….. This court is convinced by the Counsellors report that apart from this fact there was some dispute between the respondent and the father of the first petitioner regarding the assignment of some property. Respondent had produced an agreement as Ext. B2. This is an agreement executed by the mother of first petitioner in favour of the first petitioner agreeing to assign some property to her. Though this agreement was produced by the respondent to prove the allegation that petitioner was having sufficient means to maintain herself and the daughter what was in fact proved was the allegation made by the petitioner before the Counsellor that respondent was unwilling to take her back because the agreement was not put into effect. This fact that the agreement has been produced by the respondent even when the petitioner is living away from him only buttresses the allegation made by the petitioner in this regard. This Court in the circumstances is convinced that it is the respondent who has abandoned the petitioner to their fate, for no fault on their part." (emphasis supplied) 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Counsellor has grossly erred in incorporating all unnecessary details in the memorandum submitted by him under R.34 of the Family Courts (Kerala) Rules, 1989 (for short the Rules). It is further contended that the learned Judge has gone perversely wrong in placing reliance on the contents of such memorandum submitted by the Counsellor. It is further contended that the learned Judge has gone perversely wrong in placing reliance on the contents of such memorandum submitted by the Counsellor. The learned counsel for the petitioner takes the stand that in a memorandum under R.34 of the Rules, the Counsellor is only expected to report the outcome of the counselling and not exhaustive details of what transpired in the course of counselling. At any rate, even assuming that the Counsellor erroneously submitted such a memorandum, the Family Court should not have placed reliance on such material to substitute the evidence adduced in this case. I felt that the question deserves a detailed consideration and it was hence the matter was posted for detailed arguments with the assistance of amicus curiae. This Court does come across several judgments/orders of the Family Courts in which virtually conclusions are reached on the basis of such reports submitted by the Counsellors. It appears to me that such a practice has settled in the Family Courts. Family Courts find it much more easier and safer to rely on free, fair and frank statements made before the Counsellor to found findings of fact and conclusions. Is this correct? Does it not militate against the efficacy of the counselling procedure? These questions disturbed me and it was hence that the matter was posted for detailed arguments. 7. The Family Courts Act (the Act hereafter) was enacted in 1984 on the basis of the previous reports of the Law Commission and the clamour of the civil society to have a mechanism for settlement of family disputes without formal trappings and with the intention to advance the cause of matrimonial happiness and harmony. It is not necessary for me to advert to the reports of the Law Commission which the counsel have copiously cited before me to enable me to understand the purpose and purport of the statutory provisions correctly. I am satisfied that reference to certain observations in paras.1 as also 2(e) and (f) of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act will be advantageous. I extract the same below: "Several associations of women, other organizations and individuals have urged, from time to time, that Family Courts be set up for the settlement of family disputes, where emphasis should be laid on conciliation and achieving socially desirable results and adherence to rigid rules of procedure and evidence should be eliminated. I extract the same below: "Several associations of women, other organizations and individuals have urged, from time to time, that Family Courts be set up for the settlement of family disputes, where emphasis should be laid on conciliation and achieving socially desirable results and adherence to rigid rules of procedure and evidence should be eliminated. The Law Commission in its 59th report (1974) had also stressed that in dealing with disputes concerning the family, the Court ought to adopt an approach radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings and that it should make reasonable efforts at settlement before the commencement of the trial." "2. The Bill inter alia, seeks to- xxx xxx xxx (e) make it obligatory on the part of the Family Court to endeavour, in the first instance to effect a reconciliation or a settlement between the parties to a family dispute. During this stage, the proceedings will be informal and rigid rules of procedure shall not apply; (f) provide for the association of social welfare agencies, Counsellors, etc., during conciliation stage and also to secure the service of medical and welfare experts." (emphasis supplied) 8. I agree with the learned counsel that what motivated the Parliament to enact Family Courts Act was the need for a more effective, non-formal procedure for settlement of family disputes with emphasis on family reconciliations, happiness and harmony. The importance of counselling in such procedure before courts to settle the disputes was rightly perceived by the Parliament and that was emphasised in the provisions of the Act. 9. It is unnecessary to advert to all various provisions of the Act. But S.6 of the Act clearly shows that the Counsellors have a pivotal role in bringing into effect the purposes of the Statute. The Counsellor is a vital part of the machinery prescribed for settlement of disputes before the Family Courts. 10. Chapter IV of the Family Courts Act with Ss.9 to 18 deal with the procedure to be followed. It will be apposite first of all to read S.9 (1) of the Act. S.9. The Counsellor is a vital part of the machinery prescribed for settlement of disputes before the Family Courts. 10. Chapter IV of the Family Courts Act with Ss.9 to 18 deal with the procedure to be followed. It will be apposite first of all to read S.9 (1) of the Act. S.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." (emphasis supplied) This evidently suggests that in proceedings before the Family Court "in the first instance" emphasis must be on a harmonious settlement of the dispute by reconciliation though at a later stage, the role of the court may be different and formal resolution of the /is may be necessary. 11. S.10 which deals with the procedure and S.14 which deals with the application of the Indian Evidence Act are also in this context relevant as we find the anxiety to resolve the dispute by non-formal procedures is eloquently revealed in those sections also. 12. I have been taken through the entire Act. Elsewhere in the Act we do not find any provisions as to what the Counsellor should do or what use reports/ memorandum, if any, submitted by the Counsellor can be put to. 13. We now have to consider the Rules made by the Government of Kerala and the High Court under Ss.21 and 23 of the Family Courts Act. The Family Court (Kerala) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) were promulgated in 1989 by the Government under S.23. Later, in 1990 the Government in exercise of the powers under S.23 formulated the Family Courts (Kerala) Additional Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the Additional Rules). In between the High Court in exercise of its powers under S.21 of the Act promulgated the Family Courts (Procedure) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the High Court Rules). 14. Later, in 1990 the Government in exercise of the powers under S.23 formulated the Family Courts (Kerala) Additional Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the Additional Rules). In between the High Court in exercise of its powers under S.21 of the Act promulgated the Family Courts (Procedure) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the High Court Rules). 14. It appears to me to be important to ascertain what is the correct procedure which a Family Court must follow from the moment of inception of proceedings till the disposal. Such correct understanding appears to be necessary to truly appreciate the import of the memorandum/report to be submitted by the Counsellor and the use to which such memorandum/report can be put to by the court. Rr.3 and 4 of the Rules deal with institution of proceedings before the Family Court and the filing of petitions. That is the starting point of the proceeding. 15. Once petitions are filed and proceedings are instituted under Rr.3 and 4 of the Rules, R.7 of the High Court Rules become relevant and important. I extract the same below: "7. Preliminary Examinations. (i) Before issuing any process to the opposite party the Judge shall scrutinise the plaint, petition or application, and may discuss the matter with the petitioning party and offer such advice as he thinks fit and may defer the issue of the process for the time being. The Judge may associate any social welfare organisation or other persons mentioned in Section 5 of the Act for this purpose. (ii) If the plaint, petition or application has to be proceeded with, the notice shall be issued to the respondent intimating the date and time fixed for appearance in person." The Family Court is not to straightaway issue process on the filing of every application/ complaint; it is to apply its mind, it is to apply its mind, discuss the matter with the petitioning party, and offer such advice as is necessary. At any rate, even issue of process for the first time is only optional. If necessary, issue of process can be deferred. Efforts to avoid unnecessary litigation and attempt harmony can even precede the issue of process and only thereafter need the court issue process in an appropriate case. The role of the court in this new jurisprudence of harmonious resolution of dispute is eloquently conveyed in the above rule to start with. 16. If necessary, issue of process can be deferred. Efforts to avoid unnecessary litigation and attempt harmony can even precede the issue of process and only thereafter need the court issue process in an appropriate case. The role of the court in this new jurisprudence of harmonious resolution of dispute is eloquently conveyed in the above rule to start with. 16. If the court decides to issue process under R.7 of the High Court Rules, under Rr.8 and 9 of the Rules process is issued specifying a date of appearance for the parties. On such date, the parties have to appear before court. On such day the proceedings are to be placed before the Judge of the Family Court. Rr.19 to 23 of the Rules deal with the role of the court at that stage. Under R.19 of the Rules the matter is to be placed for directions before the Judge of the Family Court. The Judge is to keep apart a day in a week for issue of such directions. On that day along with the parties Counsellors are also expected to attend the Court. The parties must be present before the court and are to be directed by the court to consult the specified Counsellor. The selection of the Counsellor must also be after due application of mind. This is very clear from Rr.19 to 23 of the Rules. 17. Then starts the process of counselling. The procedure thereof is prescribed broadly in Rr.24 to 38 of the Rules. The Counsellor is to fix the date for counselling. Parties are to appear before him. If any one of the parties does not report, the Counsellor must report that fact to the court. The Counsellors duties and functions are specified in R.26. The Counsellor can take the assistance of experts, institutions and agencies. At the end of such counselling there can either be a positive result or negative result. If the result is positive counselling ends with the settlement under R.35 of the Rules which is to be signed by the parties and countersigned by the Counsellor. That settlement is to be forwarded to the court and the court is to pass appropriate order/decree in terms thereof. In such cases the matter ends at the first instance and does not proceed further. 18. Unfortunately most cases do not end there. That settlement is to be forwarded to the court and the court is to pass appropriate order/decree in terms thereof. In such cases the matter ends at the first instance and does not proceed further. 18. Unfortunately most cases do not end there. It is then that the Counsellor is obliged to submit a memorandum to the court as stipulated in R.34 of the Rules which I extract below: "34. Submission of memorandum.--Save as aforesaid, the Counsellor shall submit a brief memorandum to the Court informing the Court of the outcome of the proceedings before him." (emphasis supplied) To me it appears that the language used in R.34 is very important. What is to be submitted is not an exhaustive narration of what all transpired during this first stage of the proceedings; but only a brief memorandum to the court informing the court of the outcome of the proceedings. The outcome can only be a positive settlement under R.35 or inability to settle under R.34. When such a memorandum is sent by the Counsellor and forwarded to the court the first limb or leg of the proceedings before the Family Court comes to an end. Rr.39 to 53 of the Rules deal with the procedure that the Family Court must adopt at the second instance to formally resolve the lis between the parties. R.39 says that when the memorandum under R.34 reaches the court from the Counsellor, the Chief Ministerial Officer is to convene a meeting of the parties, discuss with them and thereafter place the petition on the board of the court under R.43 of the Rules. 19. The Family Court which refers the parties to the Counsellor under Rr.19 to 23 comes in seizing of the dispute thereafter only under R.43 of the Rules when the matter is boarded before the court. Till then, the proceedings are at the first stage of attempt to counsel, conciliate and settle the dispute harmoniously. Thereafter only, the attempt of formal /is resolution by the court at the second stage starts. This is not to say that the Family Court does not have the continued responsibility under S.9 (2) of the Act to perceive the reasonable possibility of a settlement until final disposal of the case. S. 9(2) of the Act reads as follows: "9. Thereafter only, the attempt of formal /is resolution by the court at the second stage starts. This is not to say that the Family Court does not have the continued responsibility under S.9 (2) of the Act to perceive the reasonable possibility of a settlement until final disposal of the case. S. 9(2) of the Act reads as follows: "9. Duty of Family Court to make efforts for settlement.- (1) XXX XXX XXX (2) If, in any suit or proceeding, at any rate, 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". 20. I need only mention that until the final disposal by the court by formal resolution of the /is by adjudication, the Family Court is to keep itself alive to the possibility of a harmonious settlement between the parties. 21. It will be necessary now to understand the true import and consequence of this attempt at non-formal dispute resolution at the first instance before the Counsellor till the case is boarded before the court under R.43 of the Rules. In order that such counselling/conciliation becomes effective, it is crucial that the parties who are loggerheads are not restrained by the fear that their statements made before the Counsellor may be used in evidence at later stages. We can find such provisions in relation to conciliations, negotiations and settlement under other laws. Parties must be given an opportunity to be free, frank and open before the Counsellor at the stage of non-formal and harmonious resolution. If they have a lingering fear that whatsoever they state before the Counsellor may be used in later proceedings of formal dispute resolution, they may not open up and that would considerably affect adversely the efficacy of the counselling proceedings. Law has always recognised the importance of confidentiality in the course of such attempt to conciliate, negotiate and settle the dispute. I need not look for any better statement of this requirement. I need only refer to the observations of Lord Justice Denning in McTaggart v. McTaggart (1948 All England Law Reports 754-Vol.2). Law has always recognised the importance of confidentiality in the course of such attempt to conciliate, negotiate and settle the dispute. I need not look for any better statement of this requirement. I need only refer to the observations of Lord Justice Denning in McTaggart v. McTaggart (1948 All England Law Reports 754-Vol.2). Lord Justice Denning observed as follows: "It seems to me that negotiations which take place in the presence of the probation officer with a view to reconciliation are made on the understanding, by all concerned that they are to be without prejudice to the rights of the parties. The rule as to "without prejudice" communications applies with especial force to negotiations for reconciliation. It applies whenever the dispute has got to such dimensions that litigation is imminent. In all cases where the estrangement has reached the point where the parties consult a probation officer, litigation is imminent. It is clear that there is a dispute which may end either in the Magistrates court or the Divorce Court. The probation officer has no privilege of his own from disclosure any more than a priest, or a medical man, or a banker, and on that account it has been sometimes supposed that the court will compel a probation officer to give evidence of what took place in the course of a negotiation. This is a mistake. The law favours reconciliation, and the court will not take on itself a course which would be prejudicial to its success. If a probation officer should be compelled to give evidence as to what was said in the course of negotiations, it would mean that, when he attempted reconciliation, he would not be told the truth., or, at all events, not the whole truth. The parties would have at the back of their minds the thought that whatever they said might be given in evidence against them or for them, and would colour their statements accordingly. There is no chance of reconciliation unless the parties are liable to talk with frankness to the probation officer and with complete confidence that what they say will not be disclosed. If they are genuinely seeking his assistance they must be taken to negotiate on that understanding even though nothing is expressly said."(emphasis supplied) 22. There is no chance of reconciliation unless the parties are liable to talk with frankness to the probation officer and with complete confidence that what they say will not be disclosed. If they are genuinely seeking his assistance they must be taken to negotiate on that understanding even though nothing is expressly said."(emphasis supplied) 22. The law makers who were responsible for enacting the Family Courts Act and Rules felt that the law must expressly speak on this aspect and we find speech on that aspect eloquently in R.29 of the Rules. I extract the same below: "29.Confidentiality of information.-- Any information gathered by the Counsellor, any statement made before the Counsellor or any notes or report prepared by the Counsellor shall be treated as Confidential. The Counsellor shall not be called upon to disclose this information, statements, notes or report to any Court except with the consent of both the parties." (emphasis supplied) Not satisfied with that eloquent statement the rule makers in Rr.30 and 33 of the Rules made further express stipulations that the Counsellor shall not be permitted to give evidence; norshall he be cross-examined. Those rules are important and therefore I extract Rr.30 and 33 below: "30. Counsellor not to give evidence.--The Counsellor shall not be permitted to give evidence in any Court in respect of the information, statements, notes or report referred to in R.29." xxx xxx xxx (I have deliberately omitted the provisos now) 33. Counsellor not to be cross-examined.--The Counsellor shall not be asked to give evidence and shall not be cross-examined in any Court in respect of the report so made." 23. A careful reading of Rr.29 and 30 (body of the Rule) and R.33 must convey unmistakably that the Act and Rules do not contemplate any revealing of the information gathered by the Counsellor to any one including the court. The words "any court" in R.29 expressly mandate that the Counsellor should not reveal any such information to any one including the Family Court. Lest, there be any doubt, R.30 (body) as well as R.33 settle beyond the pale of controversy that such a Counsellor cannot be examined or cross-examined in any court including the Family Court. 24. The words "any court" in R.29 expressly mandate that the Counsellor should not reveal any such information to any one including the Family Court. Lest, there be any doubt, R.30 (body) as well as R.33 settle beyond the pale of controversy that such a Counsellor cannot be examined or cross-examined in any court including the Family Court. 24. To me it appears that the concern and anxiety expressed by Lord Justice Denning in the passage extracted above which is repeated by many learned Judges and authors is abated and avoided by the specific stipulation of Rr.29, 30 (body) and 33 of the Rules. Let it be understood clearly. The Counsellor cannot reveal any information or details gathered by him in the course of counselling to any one including the Family Court except with the consent of both parties and the Counsellor cannot be called to give evidence in court in respect of any such information either during chief examination or cross-examination. These stipulations serve the laudable purpose of preserving the sanctity and confidentiality of counselling/conciliation before the Counsellor. They cater to the efficacy and efficiency of the process of counselling/conciliation. 25. It will be apposite straightaway to note the language of R.34 which only enjoins on the Counsellor the duty to submit brief memorandum to.the court informing the court of the outcome of the proceedings. Only the outcome is to be communicated. No information revealed to the Counsellor by any one in the course of proceedings is to be incorporated in such memorandum. This, to me, is of seminal importance because I do frequently come across memoranda submitted under R.34 calling it to be a report and also incorporating all the meticulous details of the process of counselling that has taken place before him. No Counsellor is expected to do that. The Counsellor need and should only briefly report to the court the outcome of the proceedings before him in the memorandum (not a report) and the only outcome of relevance to the court is whether there has been a settlement or not. The details of the counselling procedure and the information revealed by the parties or others before the Counsellor are not to be disclosed even to the Family Court by the Counsellor except with the consent of both parties. 26. The details of the counselling procedure and the information revealed by the parties or others before the Counsellor are not to be disclosed even to the Family Court by the Counsellor except with the consent of both parties. 26. If that be so, I have now got to consider certain other provisions which relate to submission of reports by the Counsellor to the court. What details can be revealed in such reports? This is the next question to be considered by us now. The relevant provisions come under the two provisos to R.30, R.31 as also R.53. Of course there is reference to reports under R.25 as also R.36. But those reports are different in context and content and it is not necessary to advert to them in any greater detail in this order. I extract the entire R.30 with its two provisos, R.31 and R.53 below: “30. Counsellor not to give evidence.-- The Counsellor shall not be permitted to give evidence in any Court in respect of the information, statements, notes or report referred to in R.29. Provided that the Counsellor shall submit to the Court a report relating to the home environment of the parties concerned, their personalities and their relationship with their child/ children in order to assist the Court in deciding the question of custody or guardianship of any child/children of the marriage. Provided further that the Counsellor shall also submit to the Court a report relating to home environment, income or standard of living of the party or parties concerned in order to assist the Court in determining the amount of maintenance and/or alimony to be granted to one of the parties." “31. Report from the Counsellor.— The Court may also request the Counsellor to submit to it a report on any other subject in order to assist the Court in adjudicating upon the matter before it or any part thereof and a copy thereof may be supplied to the parties on request." "53. Report from the Counsellor.— The Court may ask the Counsellor to submit an interim report for the purposes of such application before deciding an interim application." 27. Four reports appear to be possible. I shall call them reports 1,2,3 and 4 and they are reports under the first proviso to R.30, under second proviso to R.30, under R.31 and R.53 of the Rules. Four reports appear to be possible. I shall call them reports 1,2,3 and 4 and they are reports under the first proviso to R.30, under second proviso to R.30, under R.31 and R.53 of the Rules. The rule making authority permits the Counsellorto make such reports to the court. 28. Report No.1 is to be submitted to assist the court in deciding the question of custody or guardianship and such report is to be about the home environment of the parties concerned, their personalities and their relationship with their child/children. Report No.2 under the second proviso to R.30 is to assist the court in determining the amount of maintenance and/or alimony to be granted to one of the parties. Such report must relate to home environment, income or standard of living of the parties. Report No.3 under R.31 is to assist the court in adjudicating upon any subject matter or any part thereof. Report No.4 under R.53 is to be submitted by the Counsellor while the matter is pending before the Counsellor to help the court "for the purpose of interim application". Rr.52 and 53 of the Rules must be read together and they read thus: "52. Interim applications while matter is pending before Counsellor.— An interim application may be made even while the matter is pending before a Counsellor. 53. Report from the Counsellor.—The Court may ask the Counsellor to submit an interim report for the purposes of such application before deciding an interim application." 29. I have now referred to the provisions in the Rules. The reports contemplated under these four provisions are definitely subject to the stipulations of Rr.29, 30 (body) and 33. It would be myopic to assume that these four reports are not controlled or regulated by Rr.29, 30 (body) and 33 as such an assumption would negate the very sanctity and confidentiality of the process of counselling/conciliation before the Counsellor. These four reports contemplated do, strictly not fall within the functions of the Counsellor as a Counsellor under R.26 of the Rules to settle the family disputes. They only relate to the duty of the Counsellor as an officer of the court to submit reports to assist the court. I have no doubt in my mind that the Counsellor is not expected to reveal any information in violation of R.29 while submitting these four reports. They only relate to the duty of the Counsellor as an officer of the court to submit reports to assist the court. I have no doubt in my mind that the Counsellor is not expected to reveal any information in violation of R.29 while submitting these four reports. It is important that this duty to submit reports 1, 2, 3 and 4 does not come as an exception to R.29; but they come only as exceptions/provisos to R.30. R.30 stipulates that the Counsellor cannot be permitted to give evidence. Even though he cannot give evidence, he is permitted to submit reports when called upon by the Family Court, which reports may be made use of by the court. Such reports may be useful and helpful to assist the court. That is the only purpose of these four reports. 30. I shall straightaway refer to R.19 of the High Court Rules. The High Court Rules are enacted after the Government promulgated the Rules under S.23. While promulgating the High Court Rules, the rule makers were conscious of Rr.29, 30, 31, 33 and 53 of the Rules. There is a stipulation in R.19 about the confidential information gathered by the Counsellor. I extract R.19 below. "19. Confidential information.— Information gathered by the Counsellor in the course of attempts for reconciliation shall be treated as confidential. The Counsellor shall not disclose such information to others or be compelled to disclose such information to any other person or authority except the Court." (emphasis supplied) 31. In this rule, there is a mandate that the Counseller shall not reveal information to any other person or authority "except the court". The question is whether the Counsellor will be justified under R.19 of the High Court Rules to reveal any information to the Family Court in violation of the mandate of R.29 of the Rules. According to me, it would be incorrect to read R.19 of the High Court Rules divorced of the context and without being aware of Rr.29 to 33 and 53 of the Rules. From the rules it is evident that the information collected in the course of counselling cannot be revealed to any one. The Counsellor cannot be subjected to chief-examination or cross-examination. But he has an obligation to submit 4 reports to the court when called upon by the Family Court. From the rules it is evident that the information collected in the course of counselling cannot be revealed to any one. The Counsellor cannot be subjected to chief-examination or cross-examination. But he has an obligation to submit 4 reports to the court when called upon by the Family Court. When R.19 of the High Court Rules speaks against revealing of information to all except the court what the rule makers obviously wanted was not to bar submission of the said reports under Rr.30, 31 and 53. This is the only reasonable way, according to me, to understand the expression "except the court" appearing in R.19. R.19 cannot be read and understood as to obviate or nullify the stipulations of Rr.29, 30 and 33 of the Rules. It is only in this context and to facilitate submission of the reports under Rr.30, 31 and 53 under the Rules that R.19 of the High Court Rules enables the Counsellor to furnish information to the court. It will be unjustified and impermissible to understand R.19 of the High Court Rules ignoring and overlooking Rr.29, 30 and 33 of the Rules. 32. We now come to the question as to what use the reports of the Counsellor can be put by a court? It is contended that it must be possible for the court to receive the report as evidence. In this context reliance is placed on Ss. 10(3) and 14 of the Family Court Act, I extract them below: "10. Procedure generally. xxx xxx xxx (3) Nothing in sub-s. (1) or sub-s.(2) shall prevent a Family Court from laying down its own procedure with a view to arrive at a settlement in respect of the subject-matter of the suit or proceedings or at the truth of the facts alleged by the one party and denied by the other." "14. Application of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.-- A Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, documents, information or matter that may, in its opinion, assist it to deal effectually with a dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872)." 33. Application of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.-- A Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, documents, information or matter that may, in its opinion, assist it to deal effectually with a dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872)." 33. The argument is that S. 10(3) permits the Family Court to lay down its own procedure and S.14 permits the Family Court to receive as evidence the report etc., and therefore the report under Rr.30, 31 and 53 can be received as evidence by the Family Court at the later stage of formal dispute resolution. 34. I must take note of the well established principle of law that principles of natural justice must inform the court while interpreting all statutory provisions and that all interstitial spaces in the statute and rules must be filled up by principles of natural justice. 35. If it were to be held that such reports can be received in evidence at the stage of formal dispute resolution, the author of the report cannot be examined or cross-examined. Acceptance of such reports as evidence, I am satisfied, will certainly be negation of the principles of natural justice. Such reports definitely are not to be received as evidence. The language of the provisos to Rr.30 and 31 as also R.53 must definitely suggest that such reports (Reports 1 to 4 above) are not to be used as evidence; but used only to "assist the court in taking decisions". I read it as only an enabling provision to have a proper background of mind to appreciate the evidence adduced and materials placed before court by the parties. 36. It is contended that inasmuch as R.32 which I extract below permits the parties to make their submissions on the report, it can be assumed that after hearing such submissions such reports can be received in evidence. "32. Parties, right to make submissions.— The parties shall be entitled to make their submission on the report." I am unable to accept this contention as that would oblige the parties to be bound by a report, the maker of which cannot be examined in court in chief or cross. "32. Parties, right to make submissions.— The parties shall be entitled to make their submission on the report." I am unable to accept this contention as that would oblige the parties to be bound by a report, the maker of which cannot be examined in court in chief or cross. I reckon the enabling provision to receive reports (Reports 1 to 4 above) under Rr.30, 31 and 53 as only methods to apprise the court of such broad circumstances in the background of which the evidence/materials in the case is to be appreciated by the Family Court at the stage of formal dispute resolution. The copies of the reports must certainly be furnished to all parties to the /is. Even though only R.31 speaks of such a specific requirement it can easily be assumed that the copies of reports under Rr.30, 31 and 53 must all be certainly furnished to the parties as in the absence of such reports they cannot be expected to make their submissions on such reports. R.32 would become meaningless if it were to be assumed that the party who has not been given a copy of the report will be obliged to make his submission on the report. 37. From the above discussions, the following conclusions emerge: (1) Under R.34 of the Rules, no report is to be submitted by the Counsellor and the Counsellor is expected only to make a brief memorandum to the Family Court informing the court of the out come of the proceedings before him. Exhaustive details of what transpired during the counselling and the information gathered as also the rival contentions and assertions are not to be reported to the court in such memorandum. The out come of the proceedings alone must and need be reported. There can therefore be no question of the Family Court making use of the contents of the memorandum submitted to it under R.34 of the Rules for the purpose of formally resolving any dispute between the parties. The Counsellor as well as the Family Courts must know and understand that such reports should not contain anything but the out come of the proceedings in a counselling/conciliation and consequently the contents thereof cannot be made use of as evidence for formal resolution of the dispute between the parties. The Counsellor as well as the Family Courts must know and understand that such reports should not contain anything but the out come of the proceedings in a counselling/conciliation and consequently the contents thereof cannot be made use of as evidence for formal resolution of the dispute between the parties. (2) It is perfectly permissible for the court to ask for reports under the provisos to R.30, R.31 and R.53 of the Rules. The Counsellor is to furnish to the court such reports when specifically directed by the court. Even when such reports are made, the embargo under R.29 of the Rules must be observed strictly by the Counsellor. He can in such reports report only facts ascertained by him otherwise and not information gathered by him in the course of proceedings in counselling. R.19 of the High Court Rules is not to be read as an exception to R.29 of the Rules. Such reports submitted by the Counsellor shall be used by the Family Court not as evidence in the formal resolution of the lis between the parties; but only as material to assist the court for the appreciation of materials/evidence placed before it. Such report can be looked into and so used by the Family Court only after the parties are given an opportunity to make their submissions on such reports under R.32 of the Rules. 38. Having so understood the law, we come back to the facts of the case. What is submitted by the Counsellor on 28.3.2006 is only a memorandum under R.34 and not a report though miscalled so. The contents of such memorandum clearly offend R.29. The Family Court was evidently not justified in relying on such materials in the said memorandum which offend the rule of confidentiality in R.29. Consequently, reliance placed by the Family Court on the contents of the memorandum to come to a conclusion against the petitioner herein cannot be held to be justified or acceptable. I will have to consider the sustainability of the order sans the contents of the memorandum dated 28.3.2006. I therefore eschew the observations made by the Family Court on the basis of the memorandum dated 28.3.2006 which I have extracted initially in this order. 39. The question that still survives is whether the impugned order is justified. I will have to consider the sustainability of the order sans the contents of the memorandum dated 28.3.2006. I therefore eschew the observations made by the Family Court on the basis of the memorandum dated 28.3.2006 which I have extracted initially in this order. 39. The question that still survives is whether the impugned order is justified. So far as the liability to maintain the child is concerned, there can be and there is no challenge. Of course, the learned counsel does not accept that Rs.750/-permensem awarded for the child is reasonable; but in the circumstances of the case I have no hesitation to uphold that direction. I find no merit in the contention that Ext.B1 establishes that the petitioner has no sufficient means. 40. What remains is only the direction to pay maintenance to the wife. It is now trite that the husband is liable to maintain his wife under S.125 Cr.P.C. wherever she is. A husband who has sufficient means has to maintain his wife wherever she resides if she is unable to maintain herself. But in proceedings under S.125 Cr.P.C., he can contend that he is willing to maintain his wife on condition that she lives with him. If he does not make such an offer, such a husband cannot have a defence under S.125 Cr.P.C. That position is made crystal clear in Zeenath V. SulfikerAli (2008 (3) KLT 757) and Mary v. Varghese (2008 (4) KLT 522). 41. The question is whether the petitioner herein has made such an offer. Significantly, the entire counter statement shows that there is no such offer made by him. The subsequent offer which appears to have been made by him in the course of the proceedings is without any bona fides, it is transparently evident. I am not going through the report of the Counsellor in detail to found any findings of fact; but I am satisfied that the significance of the absence of an offer in the counter statement becomes evident on a total appreciation of all the relevant facts including the memorandum submitted by the Counsellor. It is not necessary or proper to go into the contents of the memorandum on that aspect. The absence of even the semblance of a specific offer in the counterstatement makes it clear that the petitioner had no serious intention of maintaining his wife on condition that she lives with him. 42. It is not necessary or proper to go into the contents of the memorandum on that aspect. The absence of even the semblance of a specific offer in the counterstatement makes it clear that the petitioner had no serious intention of maintaining his wife on condition that she lives with him. 42. The claimant/wife shows reluctance to accept the offer of her husband to take her because of a questionable relationship which he has with a woman in the neighbourhood. The petitioner, who admits the existence of such a woman, contends that such woman is a close relative of his. But surprisingly and significantly the nature of that relationship is not revealed to the court. It is not necessary to consider in detail whether the petitioner has an extra marital relationship with any other woman in the total absence of a relevant and valid offer made in the counter statement in this proceeding. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that the impugned order directing payment of maintenance to the wife is also perfectly justified even without placing any reliance on the objectionable information conveyed to the court by the Counsellor in the memorandum under R.34 contrary to the stipulation of R.29 of the Rules. 43. It follows that the impugned order only deserves to be upheld and this revision has only to be dismissed. 44. This Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. 45. The Registry shall communicate this order to all the Family Courts and Counsellors attached to Family Courts in the State drawing their attention specifically to para. 37.