Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Family Courts Act, 1984, as constituted by the Uttar Pradesh State Government, vide Notification No.79/11/86-Jus., dated September 4, 1986, has conferred the jurisdiction upon Family Courts, initially exercised by a Ist- Class Magistrate and the Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008 has conferred the jurisdiction upon the Gram Nyayalaya as per part II of first Schedule, thereby empowered the Gram Nyayalaya to exercise jurisdiction on the subjects and Sections under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, as far the jurisdiction assigned to Family Courts, as per Family Court Act, 1984 is concerned, the Family Courts have been given jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the matters, with respect to Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) and further submits that, there is an overlapping, as far as jurisdiction under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) as conferred upon Family Courts, as well as the Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008. Hence, there is not only disparity, but the same leads to a situation, wherein an order passed by an officer of the cadre of Higher Judicial Service or to say Principal Judge, Family Court/ Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, then the same cannot be subjected to review/ recall or set aside by the Gram Nyayalaya, which has happened in the present case i.e to say, that in the beginning, an order was passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court under Section 125 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) and thereafter, the respondent in the present case, filed an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), bearing No,375 of 2021, which was transferred for disposal to Gram Nyayalaya, Dhampur, Bijnor. Hence, learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Presiding Officer, Gram Nyayalaya exercised jurisdiction over and above the order passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, an officer of the Higher Judicial Service cadre, which has no parallel or does not enjoy any parity with respect to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the matters being adjudicated upon by the Family Courts. As on date, the Family Courts comprises the officer of Higher Judicial Service cadre only and there is nobody, who is an officer of the rank of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate or Civil Judge (Senior Division)/ Chief Judicial Magistrate, either attached or posted, within the scheme of Family Courts Act, 1984.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, the legislature by conferring the concurrent jurisdiction i.e. one under Family Court Act, 1984 and another under Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008, the former being exercised by the officers of the Higher Judicial Service cadre and the later being exercised by the officers of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) cadre, has led to disparity, and anomaly, within the cadre of the District Courts. Hence, the arrangement has not only created a fuss, but has also led to disparity, judicial impropriety and overlapping in exercising jurisdiction, over one and the single subject i.e. Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) by two different judicial officers in the hierarchy and therefore, the subject matter of Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) ought not to have been included in Part II of the first Schedule of Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008, as the same was fully operating under the scheme of Family Courts Act, 1984, prior to the passage of Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008 and the system is still operating within the Family Courts, concurrently.

20. Having considered the rival contentions and after having perused the relevant Sections of the Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008 and the Family Courts Act, 1984, a further analysis is required with respect to the anomaly and overlapping of the jurisdiction between the two Acts i.e. Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008 and the Family Courts Act, 1984.

Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008 Family Courts Act, 1984

11. Jurisdiction of Gram Nyayalaya.

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or any other law for the time being in force, the Gram Nyayalaya shall exercise both civil and criminal jurisdiction in the manner and to the extent provided under this Act.

22. A reference was also made to the Circular letter of High Court No. 14806/ Main-B/ G.N./ Admin. (A-3)/ Allahabad: Dated 16.12.2021, wherein the matter of jurisdiction has been dealt with in the said circular letter, conferring jurisdiction of Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and clarified that, the Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008 would have an overriding effect over the (conflicting) provisions of Family Courts Act, 1984, however, the same does not deal with the disparity to the extent of disposal of cases pertaining to maintenance of wives, children and parents under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) i.e. in one hand, a First Class Magistrate exercises such powers under the Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008, on the other hand, the same power, to try cases for maintenance of wives, children and parents under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is being exercised by the officers of Higher Judicial Service cadre, i.e. Session Judge/ Additional Sessions Judge/ Additional District Judge, therefore, the disparity still continues and if an order with respect to Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is passed by Sessions Judge/ Additional Sessions Judge, in that event, the affected party from either side has lost a valuable remedy, which has not been provided under the Family Court Act, 1984, that an order passed by Gram Nyayalaya is appealable or revisable, as the case may be, before the Court of Sessions Judge/ Additional Sessions Judge. Hence, the disparity, which has been created by creation of Gram Nyayalaya under the Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008, still continues and therefore, Section 18 of Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008, is explicitly clear that, if the jurisdiction conferred upon Gram Nyayalaya with respect to Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is inconsistent with the proviso of this Act, the same can be rectified. Hence, Section 18 of Gram Nyayalaya Act and Section 20 of Family Courts Act, 1984 are overlapping with each other, as far as jurisdiction of Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is concerned, and the subject of maintenance of wives, children and parents is more akin and related to scheme of Family Courts and should continue to remain within the framework of the Family Courts, therefore, conferring jurisdiction upon Gram Nyayalaya, becomes redundant. The said circular letter of the High Court dated 16.12.2021 is read as under:-