 "Bengaluru techie suicide: Is India's family court system failing?")
The suicide of Atul Subhash, a 34-year-old software engineer who worked in Bengaluru, has once again brought India’s family courts under intense scrutiny. Subhash’s detailed 24-page suicide note revealed disturbing allegations about the emotional and psychological abuse he endured during his ongoing family dispute, which included taunts about suicide from his wife and mother-in-law.
His note, which also pointed to systemic issues within the family courts, has sparked widespread concern about the handling of family disputes, especially involving alimony, custody, and emotional well-being.
What are family courts and what is their role?
Family courts are specialised judicial bodies set up to handle disputes related to marriage, divorce, alimony, child custody, and other family matters. They were established with the aim to provide a faster, more specialised approach to resolving complex family issues.
Family courts play a crucial role in protecting the rights of vulnerable parties — especially women and children — by offering a dedicated space where emotional and psychological concerns can be better understood. ALSO READ: Bengaluru techie dies by suicide over domestic dispute: All that happened
The burden on family courts in India
Like other courts in India, family courts are burdened with a vast number of cases, many of which involve sensitive issues such as child custody, alimony, and domestic abuse.
According to a report from the Ministry of Law and Justice earlier this year, India had only 812 operational family courts across the country by the end of 2023. In 2023 alone, 1.17 million new cases were filed, a significant increase from the previous year. While over 1.13 million cases were disposed of, over 1.14 million cases still remained pending, illustrating the persistent backlog.
The situation is particularly dire in states like Uttar Pradesh, which has the highest backlog, with over 396,000 cases waiting for resolution. Maharashtra and Karnataka follow closely behind.
More From This Section
The ministry report cited that the backlog is caused by several factors, including limited infrastructure, a shortage of judges, and procedural delays. This systemic strain not only prolongs the process of justice but often leads to unresolved issues that weigh heavily on the mental well-being of those involved, as seen in the case of Subhash.
Suicide abetment and family disputes
Subhash’s 24-page suicide note raises an uncomfortable question: could the alleged emotional abuse he experienced be considered abetment to suicide?
Indian law defines suicide abetment as a punishable offence when someone incites another person to take their life. However, proving this can be challenging because it requires a direct and proximate link between the accused's actions and the victim’s death. In cases involving emotional or psychological abuse, this connection is often difficult to establish.
While a suicide note might point to emotional harm, it typically isn't enough for conviction without further evidence showing that the actions of the accused directly led to the victim's decision to end their life.
Despite Subhash’s clear account of the emotional toll his family disputes took on him, proving a legal link to his tragic decision remains a challenge. Previous legal precedents indicate that while suicide notes can serve as valuable evidence, they alone are not sufficient for conviction.
In its 2020 S Sree Lakshmi vs State of Kerala judgment, the Kerala High Court held that the contents of a suicide note must be carefully analysed in context, along with other available evidence, to establish whether there was abetment to suicide. A suicide note could be an important piece of evidence, but it should not be the sole factor leading to a conviction, the court noted.
The challenges of alimony and maintenance
Another issue raised by Subhash's case is the ongoing struggle around alimony and maintenance. Under Section 125 of the CrPC, courts are expected to ensure that women and children are not left destitute after a marriage breaks down. However, the judicial process can be slow, with interim maintenance applications often pending for years.
The Supreme Court’s 2020 Rajnesh verdict established guidelines for determining alimony, considering factors like income, duration of marriage, and the needs of the child. However, delays in maintenance settlements persist due to the high volume of cases, with many individuals — both man and woman — left in financial uncertainty for prolonged periods.
In cases involving a change in financial circumstances, such as job loss or a change in salary, the courts can modify maintenance orders. Still, the lack of consistent enforcement and the emotional burden of unresolved financial disputes contribute to the sense of injustice many litigants feel.
Custody and parental alienation
Subhash’s case also highlights issues related to child custody and parental alienation. Indian courts consider the "best interest" of the child when making custody decisions, but the emotional toll of these disputes can be severe. Parental alienation — where one parent influences a child’s perception of the other parent — has been recognised by the Supreme Court, and orders are sometimes issued to ensure that non-custodial parents are granted regular access to their children.
However, the implementation of these orders is inconsistent, and cases of denied access or alienation continue to frustrate many parents, particularly fathers.
Need for reforms
The case of Atul Subhash underscores the need for systemic reforms to better the family courts, particularly in relation to access to children, parental alienation, long delays, and the emotional toll on litigants.
Advocates have pointed out that family courts are often overwhelmed by the volume of cases, with judges handling up to 120 cases a day, according to a report in India Today. This strain not only affects the quality of justice but also prevents litigants from receiving timely resolutions. The lack of trained counselors and mediators further exacerbates the emotional challenges of family litigation.
What is the government doing?
Recognising the growing challenges within the family court system, the government has taken several steps to address these issues. The Ministry of Law and Justice has reported a significant increase in the number of functional family courts, with plans to further expand infrastructure and digital services.
As of December 2023, the government had built over 21,000 court halls and nearly 19,000 residential units for judges and staff under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS). Additionally, the e-Courts Mission Mode Project has been instrumental in bringing courts online, enabling video conferencing and improving case tracking via the National Judicial Data Grid.
Despite these initiatives, the challenges persist. The shortage of judges, especially in rural areas, exacerbates the delays in case settlements. The government has acknowledged these concerns and is focusing on enhancing infrastructure, increasing digitisation, and training family counselors in gender sensitivity to improve the overall functioning of family courts.