Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17. It is evident from perusal of Section 10 of Family Courts Act that provisions of Civil Procedure Code are applicable to the proceedings before the Family Courts. It would be pertinent to observe here that provisions encoded in Civil Procedure Code are based on principle of natural justice and fair play, hence all the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are made applicable to the proceedings before Family Courts within the meaning of Section 10 of the Family Courts Act.

18. In case of Roopa v. Santosh Kumar reported in 2004 SCC OnLine All 1157, the Division Bench of this Court was considering a question as to whether the Family Court has the power to adjourn the case on an application moved by a party. The Family Court rejected the adjournment application on the ground that in the Family Court Act, there is no provision for moving an application for adjournment or exemption of appearance and thereafter passed final order rejecting the application under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act. In paragraph nos. 8, 9, 12 & 13, the Division Bench of this Court has held as under:

13. Family Court has necessary powers, including those under Order IX Rule 13, CPC by virtue of Section 10, Family Court Act.

19. Thus, the Court was of the view that Family Court has all necessary powers including those under Order IX, Rule 13 C.P.C. by virtue of Section 10 of the Family Court Act.

20. In case of Munna Lal and etc. v. State of U.P. and another etc. reported in 1990 SCC OnLine All 119, the Division Bench of this Court was considering a question whether Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 will apply to Family Court constituted under the Family Courts Act, 1984. In paragraph nos. 3, 5, 6 & 7, this Court has held as under:

22. In case of Deep Mala Sharma v. Mahesh Sharma reported in MANU/UP/0283/1991, while interpreting the provisions of Section 10 of the Family Court Act, a Division Bench of this Court held that provision of Limitation Act 1963, will be applicable to the proceedings under the Family Court Act. In case of Deep Mala Sharma (Supra), in paragraph no. 9, Division Bench of this Court has held as under:

"9. As regards the second point as to whether the provisions of Limitation Act were applicable, under Section 10 of the Family Court's Act it has been provided that subject to other provisions of the Act and Rules the provisions of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 and "of any other law for the time being in force" shall apply to suits and proceedings before a Family Court (other than proceedings under chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) and for the purposes of such provisions of the code, the Family Court shall be deemed to be a civil Court and shall have all the powers of such Court. The Limitation Act, particularly Section 5 thereof provides that when sufficient cause has been shown the delay in preferring appeal or application can be condoned. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and "of any other law for the time being in force" have been made applicable to the suits and proceedings before a Judge Family Court which has been declared to be deemed to be a civil Court having all the powers of such Court. The expression "of any other law for the time being in force" under Section 10 of the Family Courts Act is comprehensive enough to include the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 to be made applicable to proceedings under the Family Courts Act.
26. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of Section 19 & 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the petitioner has only remedy of filing an appeal against the ex-parte judgment, is misconceived. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any provision of Family Court Act or Rules made thereunder which prohibits the application of C.P.C.
27. Thus, in my considered opinion contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that writ of prohibition can be issued restraining the Family Court from proceeding with the application filed by the respondent under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. is wholly misconceived as I have already held that in view of Section 10 of the Family Court Act, the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are applicable in proceedings before the Family Court. The Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. and therefore, no writ of prohibition can be issued to respondent no. 1.