Full Judgment Text
1 SA237.2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
SECOND APPEAL NO. 237 OF 2016
Ravindra Sukhdev Ghadge,
Age : 40 years, Occ. Teacher, R/o. Sawarkar Nagar,
Ward No. 1, Chikhali, Tal. Chikhali,
Dist. Buldana. … Appellant
(Orig. Respondent)
VERSUS
1] Swati Ravindra Ghadge @ Swati Bhonde,
Age : 27 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. N12, CIDCO, Aurangabad,
2] Tanmay S/o. Ravindra Ghadge,
Age : 10 years, Occu. Education,
Under Guardianship of Respondent No. 1
3] Arav S/o. Ravindra Ghadge,
Age : 3 years, Occu. Nil,
Under Guardianship of Respondent No. 1 … Respondents
(Orig. Petitioners No. 1 to 3)
..........
Mr Jiwan J. Patil, Advocate for the appellant
Mr M. S. Karad h/f Mr S. V. Jadhavar, Advocate for respondent
.............
CORAM : A. M. DHAVALE, J.
ND
DATE : 2 NOVEMBER, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. In this second appeal, Mr. Jiwan Patil, learned counsel for
the appellant has raised issue of jurisdiction of the trial Court as well
as the appellate Court on the ground that Sections 7 & 8 of the
Family Courts Act, 1984, ousts the jurisdiction of the civil court in
respect of matrimonial dispute filed.
::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:25:49 :::
2 SA237.2016
2. The appellant Ravindra is husband of respondent No. 1
Swati and father of respondents No. 2 Tanmay and respondent No.
3 Arav. The respondents filed Hindu Marriage Petition No. 100 of
2012 in the court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad. The
appellant is resident of Buldhana and the respondents who are
original petitioners, were shown to be residing in N12, CIDCO,
Aurangabad. The marriage was solemnized in Aurangabad. The
petition was filed for maintenance under the Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act, 1956. The learned trial Judge awarded
maintenance of Rs.18,750/ per month to all the respondentoriginal
petitioners together, from the date of the petition. In the trial Court,
Ravindra the appellant herein, had not raised any defence of
jurisdiction. He filed Reg. Civil Appeal No. 155 of 2014 challenging
the order of trial Court. The first Appellate Court modified the order
and granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/ for each of the
petitioners.
3. Heard Mr Jiwan Patil, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr M. S. Karad, learned counsel for the respondent. The
nd
substantial question of law framed on 22 October, 2018 with my
finding is as follows:
"Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Civil
Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad, and confirmed by
District Judge, Aurangabad is nullity on account of
::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:25:49 :::
3 SA237.2016
exclusion of jurisdiction in matrimonial matters by Section
7 of the Family Courts Act?"
…... In the affirmative.
4. There is no factual dispute. The petition was filed in the
court of Civil Judge Senior Division as the petitioners were residing in
Cidco and the marriage had taken place at Aurangabad. It is not
disputed that the residence of the original petitioners as well as place
of marriage are within municipal limits of Aurangabad Municipal
Corporation and the Family Court is having jurisdiction over the
entire area of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation.
5. Sections 7 & 8 of the Family Courts Act read as under:
7. Jurisdiction:
(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall
(a) have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any district
court or any subordinate civil court under any law for the time being
in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in
the explanation; and
(b) be deemed, for the purposes of exercising such jurisdiction under
such law, to be a district court or, as the case may be, such subordinate
civil court for the area to which the jurisdiction of the Family Court
extends.
Explanation: The suits and proceedings referred to in this subsection are
suits and proceedings of the following nature, namely,
(a) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage for a decree
of nullity of marriage (declaring the marriage to be null and void or,
as the case may be, annulling the marriage) or restitution of conjugal
rights or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage;
(b) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of a
marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person;
::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:25:49 :::
4 SA237.2016
(c) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect
to the property of the parties or of either of them;
(d) a suit or proceeding for an order or injunction in circumstances
arising out of a marital relationship;
(e) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the legitimacy of any
person;
(f) a suit or proceeding for maintenance;
(g) a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person
or the custody of, or access to, any minor.
(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall also have
and exercise
(a) the jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of the First Class under
Chapter IX (relating to order for maintenance of wife, children and
parents) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); and
(b) such other jurisdiction as may be conferred on it by any other
enactment
8. Exclusion of jurisdiction and pending proceedings:
Where a Family Court has been established for any area,
(a) no district court or any subordinate civil court referred to in subsection
(1) of section 7 shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any
jurisdiction in respect of any suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the
explanation to that subsection;
(b) no magistrate shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any
jurisdiction or power under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974);
(c) every suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the explanation to sub
section (1) of section 7 and every proceeding under Chapter IX of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),
(i) which is pending immediately before the establishment of such
Family Court before any district court or subordinate court referred to
in that subsection or, as the case may be, before any Magistrate under
the said Code; and
(ii) which would have been required to be instituted or taken before or
::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:25:49 :::
5 SA237.2016
by such Family Court if, before the date on which such suit or
proceeding was instituted or taken, this Act had come into force and
such Family Court had been established, shall stand transferred to such
Family Court on the date on which it is established.
6. The Family Courts Act, 1984 was enacted to provide for the
establishment of Family Courts “with a view to promote conciliation
in, and secure speedy settlement of, disputes relating to marriage and
family affairs and for matters connected therewith,” as indicated in
the preamble of the Act. A separate forum known as Family Court,
with facilities for expert advice on matrimonial matters from
marriage counsellors, and with emphasis on the conciliatory process
more than adjudicatory process, was set up under this Act.
7. As per S. 7 of the Family Courts Act, the Family Court shall
have jurisdiction of district court or any subordinate civil Court under
any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings
of the nature referred to in subclause (a) to (g). Clause (f) of S. 7
deals with suit or proceeding for maintenance.
8. It is obvious that, in view of the establishment of the Family
Court, the Civil Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad, had no
jurisdiction to conduct the petition for grant of maintenance under
the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:25:49 :::
6 SA237.2016
9. However, the issue is, when no objection was raised to the
st nd
jurisdiction in the trial Court but was raised in the I & II appellate
Courts, whether it is curable irregularity and whether the judgment &
decree would be binding unless prejudice is shown to the parties. If
the establishment of Family Court and vesting of exclusive
jurisdiction with the Family Court is treated at par with the territorial
jurisdiction, then the decision passed by Civil Judge Sr. Divn., will
not be a nullity. However, if it is subjectwise exclusion of
jurisdiction u/s 8, the decision will be a nullity.
10. Learned counsel Shri. Patil placed reliance on Dr.
Jagmittar Sain Bhagat vs. Dir., Health Services, Haryana and Ors.
reported in AIR 2013 SC 3060 , wherein it is laid down that, if the
Court passes a decree having no jurisdiction over the matter, it would
amount to nullity as the matter goes to the roots of the cause. Such
an issue can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. The finding of
a Court or Tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/
inexecutable once the forum is found to have no jurisdiction.
Similarly, if a Court/Tribunal inherently lacks jurisdiction,
acquiescence of party equally should not be permitted to perpetuate
and perpetrate, defeating the legislative animation. The Court cannot
derive jurisdiction apart from the Statute. In such eventuality the
doctrine of waiver also does not apply.
::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:25:49 :::
7 SA237.2016
11. Section 8 is specific. It lays down that, where a family
court is established in any area, no district Court or any subordinate
civil Court referred to in subsection (1) of section 7 shall, in relation
to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of any suit or
proceeding of the nature referred to in the explanation. Similarly,
the jurisdiction of the Magistrate court is also ousted by the sub
clause (b).
12. In Maria Seria Pinto vs. Milton Dias reported in [2000(4)
Mh.L.J. 638] the Division Bench of this Court relying on Full Bench
judgment in Romila Jaidev Shroff vs. Jaidev Rajnikant Shroff reported
in 2000(3) Mh.L.J. 468 (F.B.) held that, Section 20 of the Family
Courts Act has an overriding effect and overrides anything
inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being
in force or in any Instrument having effect by virtue of any law other
than the said Act. It is further held that, in the view of the Full Bench
after coming into force of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and
establishment of the Family Court for Mumbai Area, a High Court
would completely lose its Jurisdiction by virtue of the provisions of
sections 7 and 8 read with section 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984
and that, by virtue of clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 8, all the
matrimonial matters pending before the High Court on the Original
::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:25:49 :::
8 SA237.2016
Side shall stand transferred to the Family Court for hearing and
disposal in accordance with the provisions of the said Act.
13. In Vimalashram Gharkul of Amprapali Utkarsha Sangh,
Nagpur vs. Jyto Banson Joseph reported in [2006(4) Mh.L.J. 692],
it was held that, it is, therefore, evident that after the Family Court
Act came into force, the proceedings in relation to the guardianship
of a person or custody of, or access to, of a minor are required to be
instituted in the Family Court in view of section 7 of the said Act
since it has a jurisdiction to decide these proceedings and also can
exercise jurisdiction exercisable by the District Court and therefore,
by necessary implication the application filed by the nonapplicant
under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, for custody
of minor, is not maintainable.
14. In Dawalsab vs. Khajasab reported in 2009(14) SCC 660 ,
the maintenance petition u/s 125 was filed in the family court at
Bijapur. The Judge of the Family Court held that, the respondent
was residing at Syndagi where there is a court of Judicial Magistrate
and it will have the jurisdiction. The said judgment was confirmed by
the High Court. While discussing the provisions of Sections 7 & 8 of
the Family Courts Act, the Apex Court held that, in the instant case, it
::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:25:49 :::
9 SA237.2016
is the Family Court which has jurisdiction to entertain the petition
filed by the appellant since the Family Court at Bijapur had
jurisdiction throughout the district and jurisdiction of the Magistrate
under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. has been excluded.
15. The specific ouster of jurisdiction of the courts in respect of
area for which the Family court has been established u/s 8 shows
that, the subjectwise jurisdiction of Civil Judge Sr. Divn., has been
ousted and it is not a simple question of territorial jurisdiction.
Therefore, the decisions rendered by the courts having no subject
wise jurisdiction will be a nullity.
16. In fact, the Civil Judge Senior Division should have been
more careful and should not have entertained the petition and should
have returned it for presentation before the proper court. Whenever
in any city there is a family court, all Civil Judges (Sr. Divn.) should
see whether the cause of action for the matrimonial petitions filed
before them arises within the area for which Family Court has been
established or not. If it is established, the Civil Judges (Sr. Divn.)
should return the plaint and should avoid unnecessary wastage of
time, money and energy of the litigants. As Sec. 8 of the Family
Courts Act has taken away the jurisdiction, the decisions rendered by
::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:25:49 :::
10 SA237.2016
the Civil Judges (Sr. Divn.) and District Courts are nullity. Therefore,
the substantial question of law raised is answered in the affirmative.
The appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree passed by ld.
nd
2 Jt. Civil Judge Sr. Divn., Aurangabad dt. 16.06.2014 and District
Judge1, Aurangabad dt. 10.12.2015 are set aside.
17. The trial Court is directed to return the plaint to the
respondents for presentation before the Family Court at Aurangabad.
If the respondents presents the petition in the Family Court, the
Judge of the Family Court shall consider the situation and decide the
nd
matter expeditiously. The interim relief granted vide order dt. 22
October, 2018 stands vacated.
18. Learned advocate for the respondent Mr M. S. Karad
submits that, he will present the plaint in the Family Court at
Aurangabad on 01.12.2018. The appellant shall appear before the
Family Court on 01.12.2018, without expecting separate service of
notice.
[ A. M. DHAVALE ]
JUDGE
Punde
::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:25:49 :::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
SECOND APPEAL NO. 237 OF 2016
Ravindra Sukhdev Ghadge,
Age : 40 years, Occ. Teacher, R/o. Sawarkar Nagar,
Ward No. 1, Chikhali, Tal. Chikhali,
Dist. Buldana. … Appellant
(Orig. Respondent)
VERSUS
1] Swati Ravindra Ghadge @ Swati Bhonde,
Age : 27 years, Occu. Household,
R/o. N12, CIDCO, Aurangabad,
2] Tanmay S/o. Ravindra Ghadge,
Age : 10 years, Occu. Education,
Under Guardianship of Respondent No. 1
3] Arav S/o. Ravindra Ghadge,
Age : 3 years, Occu. Nil,
Under Guardianship of Respondent No. 1 … Respondents
(Orig. Petitioners No. 1 to 3)
..........
Mr Jiwan J. Patil, Advocate for the appellant
Mr M. S. Karad h/f Mr S. V. Jadhavar, Advocate for respondent
.............
CORAM : A. M. DHAVALE, J.
ND
DATE : 2 NOVEMBER, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. In this second appeal, Mr. Jiwan Patil, learned counsel for
the appellant has raised issue of jurisdiction of the trial Court as well
as the appellate Court on the ground that Sections 7 & 8 of the
Family Courts Act, 1984, ousts the jurisdiction of the civil court in
respect of matrimonial dispute filed.
::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:25:49 :::
2 SA237.2016
2. The appellant Ravindra is husband of respondent No. 1
Swati and father of respondents No. 2 Tanmay and respondent No.
3 Arav. The respondents filed Hindu Marriage Petition No. 100 of
2012 in the court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad. The
appellant is resident of Buldhana and the respondents who are
original petitioners, were shown to be residing in N12, CIDCO,
Aurangabad. The marriage was solemnized in Aurangabad. The
petition was filed for maintenance under the Hindu Adoption and
Maintenance Act, 1956. The learned trial Judge awarded
maintenance of Rs.18,750/ per month to all the respondentoriginal
petitioners together, from the date of the petition. In the trial Court,
Ravindra the appellant herein, had not raised any defence of
jurisdiction. He filed Reg. Civil Appeal No. 155 of 2014 challenging
the order of trial Court. The first Appellate Court modified the order
and granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/ for each of the
petitioners.
3. Heard Mr Jiwan Patil, learned counsel for the appellant
and Mr M. S. Karad, learned counsel for the respondent. The
nd
substantial question of law framed on 22 October, 2018 with my
finding is as follows:
"Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Civil
Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad, and confirmed by
District Judge, Aurangabad is nullity on account of
::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:25:49 :::
3 SA237.2016
exclusion of jurisdiction in matrimonial matters by Section
7 of the Family Courts Act?"
…... In the affirmative.
4. There is no factual dispute. The petition was filed in the
court of Civil Judge Senior Division as the petitioners were residing in
Cidco and the marriage had taken place at Aurangabad. It is not
disputed that the residence of the original petitioners as well as place
of marriage are within municipal limits of Aurangabad Municipal
Corporation and the Family Court is having jurisdiction over the
entire area of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation.
5. Sections 7 & 8 of the Family Courts Act read as under:
7. Jurisdiction:
(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall
(a) have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any district
court or any subordinate civil court under any law for the time being
in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in
the explanation; and
(b) be deemed, for the purposes of exercising such jurisdiction under
such law, to be a district court or, as the case may be, such subordinate
civil court for the area to which the jurisdiction of the Family Court
extends.
Explanation: The suits and proceedings referred to in this subsection are
suits and proceedings of the following nature, namely,
(a) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage for a decree
of nullity of marriage (declaring the marriage to be null and void or,
as the case may be, annulling the marriage) or restitution of conjugal
rights or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage;
(b) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of a
marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person;
::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:25:49 :::
4 SA237.2016
(c) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect
to the property of the parties or of either of them;
(d) a suit or proceeding for an order or injunction in circumstances
arising out of a marital relationship;
(e) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the legitimacy of any
person;
(f) a suit or proceeding for maintenance;
(g) a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person
or the custody of, or access to, any minor.
(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall also have
and exercise
(a) the jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of the First Class under
Chapter IX (relating to order for maintenance of wife, children and
parents) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); and
(b) such other jurisdiction as may be conferred on it by any other
enactment
8. Exclusion of jurisdiction and pending proceedings:
Where a Family Court has been established for any area,
(a) no district court or any subordinate civil court referred to in subsection
(1) of section 7 shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any
jurisdiction in respect of any suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the
explanation to that subsection;
(b) no magistrate shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any
jurisdiction or power under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974);
(c) every suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the explanation to sub
section (1) of section 7 and every proceeding under Chapter IX of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),
(i) which is pending immediately before the establishment of such
Family Court before any district court or subordinate court referred to
in that subsection or, as the case may be, before any Magistrate under
the said Code; and
(ii) which would have been required to be instituted or taken before or
::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:25:49 :::
5 SA237.2016
by such Family Court if, before the date on which such suit or
proceeding was instituted or taken, this Act had come into force and
such Family Court had been established, shall stand transferred to such
Family Court on the date on which it is established.
6. The Family Courts Act, 1984 was enacted to provide for the
establishment of Family Courts “with a view to promote conciliation
in, and secure speedy settlement of, disputes relating to marriage and
family affairs and for matters connected therewith,” as indicated in
the preamble of the Act. A separate forum known as Family Court,
with facilities for expert advice on matrimonial matters from
marriage counsellors, and with emphasis on the conciliatory process
more than adjudicatory process, was set up under this Act.
7. As per S. 7 of the Family Courts Act, the Family Court shall
have jurisdiction of district court or any subordinate civil Court under
any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings
of the nature referred to in subclause (a) to (g). Clause (f) of S. 7
deals with suit or proceeding for maintenance.
8. It is obvious that, in view of the establishment of the Family
Court, the Civil Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad, had no
jurisdiction to conduct the petition for grant of maintenance under
the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:25:49 :::
6 SA237.2016
9. However, the issue is, when no objection was raised to the
st nd
jurisdiction in the trial Court but was raised in the I & II appellate
Courts, whether it is curable irregularity and whether the judgment &
decree would be binding unless prejudice is shown to the parties. If
the establishment of Family Court and vesting of exclusive
jurisdiction with the Family Court is treated at par with the territorial
jurisdiction, then the decision passed by Civil Judge Sr. Divn., will
not be a nullity. However, if it is subjectwise exclusion of
jurisdiction u/s 8, the decision will be a nullity.
10. Learned counsel Shri. Patil placed reliance on Dr.
Jagmittar Sain Bhagat vs. Dir., Health Services, Haryana and Ors.
reported in AIR 2013 SC 3060 , wherein it is laid down that, if the
Court passes a decree having no jurisdiction over the matter, it would
amount to nullity as the matter goes to the roots of the cause. Such
an issue can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. The finding of
a Court or Tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/
inexecutable once the forum is found to have no jurisdiction.
Similarly, if a Court/Tribunal inherently lacks jurisdiction,
acquiescence of party equally should not be permitted to perpetuate
and perpetrate, defeating the legislative animation. The Court cannot
derive jurisdiction apart from the Statute. In such eventuality the
doctrine of waiver also does not apply.
::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:25:49 :::
7 SA237.2016
11. Section 8 is specific. It lays down that, where a family
court is established in any area, no district Court or any subordinate
civil Court referred to in subsection (1) of section 7 shall, in relation
to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of any suit or
proceeding of the nature referred to in the explanation. Similarly,
the jurisdiction of the Magistrate court is also ousted by the sub
clause (b).
12. In Maria Seria Pinto vs. Milton Dias reported in [2000(4)
Mh.L.J. 638] the Division Bench of this Court relying on Full Bench
judgment in Romila Jaidev Shroff vs. Jaidev Rajnikant Shroff reported
in 2000(3) Mh.L.J. 468 (F.B.) held that, Section 20 of the Family
Courts Act has an overriding effect and overrides anything
inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being
in force or in any Instrument having effect by virtue of any law other
than the said Act. It is further held that, in the view of the Full Bench
after coming into force of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and
establishment of the Family Court for Mumbai Area, a High Court
would completely lose its Jurisdiction by virtue of the provisions of
sections 7 and 8 read with section 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984
and that, by virtue of clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 8, all the
matrimonial matters pending before the High Court on the Original
::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:25:49 :::
8 SA237.2016
Side shall stand transferred to the Family Court for hearing and
disposal in accordance with the provisions of the said Act.
13. In Vimalashram Gharkul of Amprapali Utkarsha Sangh,
Nagpur vs. Jyto Banson Joseph reported in [2006(4) Mh.L.J. 692],
it was held that, it is, therefore, evident that after the Family Court
Act came into force, the proceedings in relation to the guardianship
of a person or custody of, or access to, of a minor are required to be
instituted in the Family Court in view of section 7 of the said Act
since it has a jurisdiction to decide these proceedings and also can
exercise jurisdiction exercisable by the District Court and therefore,
by necessary implication the application filed by the nonapplicant
under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, for custody
of minor, is not maintainable.
14. In Dawalsab vs. Khajasab reported in 2009(14) SCC 660 ,
the maintenance petition u/s 125 was filed in the family court at
Bijapur. The Judge of the Family Court held that, the respondent
was residing at Syndagi where there is a court of Judicial Magistrate
and it will have the jurisdiction. The said judgment was confirmed by
the High Court. While discussing the provisions of Sections 7 & 8 of
the Family Courts Act, the Apex Court held that, in the instant case, it
::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:25:49 :::
9 SA237.2016
is the Family Court which has jurisdiction to entertain the petition
filed by the appellant since the Family Court at Bijapur had
jurisdiction throughout the district and jurisdiction of the Magistrate
under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. has been excluded.
15. The specific ouster of jurisdiction of the courts in respect of
area for which the Family court has been established u/s 8 shows
that, the subjectwise jurisdiction of Civil Judge Sr. Divn., has been
ousted and it is not a simple question of territorial jurisdiction.
Therefore, the decisions rendered by the courts having no subject
wise jurisdiction will be a nullity.
16. In fact, the Civil Judge Senior Division should have been
more careful and should not have entertained the petition and should
have returned it for presentation before the proper court. Whenever
in any city there is a family court, all Civil Judges (Sr. Divn.) should
see whether the cause of action for the matrimonial petitions filed
before them arises within the area for which Family Court has been
established or not. If it is established, the Civil Judges (Sr. Divn.)
should return the plaint and should avoid unnecessary wastage of
time, money and energy of the litigants. As Sec. 8 of the Family
Courts Act has taken away the jurisdiction, the decisions rendered by
::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:25:49 :::
10 SA237.2016
the Civil Judges (Sr. Divn.) and District Courts are nullity. Therefore,
the substantial question of law raised is answered in the affirmative.
The appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree passed by ld.
nd
2 Jt. Civil Judge Sr. Divn., Aurangabad dt. 16.06.2014 and District
Judge1, Aurangabad dt. 10.12.2015 are set aside.
17. The trial Court is directed to return the plaint to the
respondents for presentation before the Family Court at Aurangabad.
If the respondents presents the petition in the Family Court, the
Judge of the Family Court shall consider the situation and decide the
nd
matter expeditiously. The interim relief granted vide order dt. 22
October, 2018 stands vacated.
18. Learned advocate for the respondent Mr M. S. Karad
submits that, he will present the plaint in the Family Court at
Aurangabad on 01.12.2018. The appellant shall appear before the
Family Court on 01.12.2018, without expecting separate service of
notice.
[ A. M. DHAVALE ]
JUDGE
Punde
::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/06/2024 02:25:49 :::