An “overburdened” veteran Queens Family Court judge says a law extending Family Court protections to people who aren’t related is clogging his courthouse with cases that take precious time away from more serious domestic violence disputes.

Judge John H. Hunt says in a recent case ruling that the courthouse catastrophe is an unintended consequence of a 2008 amendment to the state Family Court Act.

The act expanded the protection — only to encourage what he calls frivolous cases brought by exes with bruised egos who have nothing to lose because it costs nothing to sue.

“Since there is no filing fee all grievances can be aired at no cost, regardless of spiteful motivation, pettiness or legal merit,” the judge wrote in his decision on a relationship gone bad.

The Family Court Act was created 45 years ago to protect domestic violence victims.

But because of the 10-year-old amendment that covers people who are not related by blood or marriage the judge says he more often deals with “allegations by ex-girlfriends and ex-boyfriends that amount to nothing more than name-calling that results in hurt feelings, and disrespectful behavior manifested by ill-advised posts on social media.”

“It does not appear to this court that a non-violent, bad break-up was ever intended by the framers of the Family Court Act to be the basis for invoking the family court’s authority to issue orders of protection where none are necessary,” he wrote.

The case that sparked the mercy plea was Maliha A. v. Onu M. in May over a nasty text and Twitter exchange when their rocky, five-year relationship ended.

The parties are not identified in the ruling by their full names because Family Court cases are confidential.

Maliha admitted Onu was never violent.

Hunt tossed the case, finding that Maliha “did not meet her burden of proving conduct that rose to the level of a family offense.”

Hunt declined to comment on the decision but two court officials who have worked with him said his concerns are on point.

“Everyone has a right to be heard, but we need some vetting at the filing stage,” one official told The Post.

“I’m not saying they shouldn’t come in here until they get punched in they face, but sometimes ‘harassment’ is a bit much,” he said.

Hunt’s ruling asks the legislature to look at changing the law.

“The overburdened family court could certainly benefit from the Legislature’s closer look at revising the statute to balance the root of its intent with what has become its perverted application,” the ruling says.