District Court holds exclusive jurisdiction to permit alienation of minor’s property, excluding Family Court jurisdiction.

The Appellants, consisting of a mother and her two minor sons, are joint registered owners of immovable property in Village Dabrabhath

The mother (Appellant No. 1) filed an application before the Family Court, Kabirdham, seeking permission to sell a portion of the minors' property (Khasra No. 313/3) to fund their education

The Family Court summarily rejected the application, holding that under Explanation (g) to Section 7(1) read with Section 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, it lacked the jurisdiction to grant permission for the alienation of a minor’s property

The Appellants challenged this order, contending that the Family Court is the sole authority for such matters following the enactment of the Family Courts Act

1. Whether the Family Court has the jurisdiction to entertain an application for granting permission to sell a minor’s property under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, or whether the District Court retains such jurisdiction

Section 7(1) Explanation (g) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which vests Family Courts with jurisdiction over suits relating to the "guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor"

Section 8(a) of the same Act, which excludes the jurisdiction of District Courts only for matters specifically listed in the Section 7 Explanation

Section 8(2) and 8(6) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, which require a natural guardian to seek permission from the "court"—defined specifically as a City Civil Court or a District Court—before alienating a minor's immovable property

Section 9(2) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, regarding the territorial jurisdiction of District Courts in property matters

The High Court observed that the legislature "consciously omitted" the management or alienation of a minor's property from the ambit of the Family Court's jurisdiction under Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984

While the Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the person and custody of a minor, Section 8(a) of the Family Courts Act only excludes the District Court's jurisdiction regarding the specific categories mentioned in the Explanation to Section 7

Since "property" is not mentioned in Explanation (g), the statutory mandate of Section 8(6) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956—which expressly empowers the District Court to handle property alienation—remains intact

Therefore, the court reasoned that the jurisdiction to grant permission for the sale of a minor's estate resides exclusively with the District Court and not the Family Court

The appeal was dismissed in limine

the court granted the appellants liberty to file a fresh application before the District Court, Kabirdham, under Section 8(2) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, directing the District Court to decide the matter in accordance with law without being prejudiced by previous observations