Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Countering the said submission Sri Ashish Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate on the other hand contended that proceedings under Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 are not at all cognizable by Family Judge as they do not fall within the scope and ambit of Sections 7,8 and 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, as such writ petition as it has been framed and drawn is liable to be dismissed.

In order to appreciate controversy which has been sought to be raised the provision of Sections 7, 8 and 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 are being looked into.

4. The point that remains to be seen is whether an application under S. 3 of 1986 Act can be entertained by the Family Court or whether it lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the concerned Magistrate as provided by the Act itself. The respondent vehemently urged that the application could be entertained only by the Family Court in view of S. 7 of the 1984 Act. We may therefore first consider S. 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. "7. Jurisdiction.- (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall-

10. Thus, we have seen that neither under sub-section (1) nor under sub-section (2) of S. 7 the Family Court's Act has any jurisdiction to entertain an application of the nature contemplated by Section 3 of the 1986 Act.

11. Faced with such a situation the learned counsel for the respondent turned to sub-sec. (2)(b). He urged that jurisdiction may be deemed to have been conferred on the Family. Court under this provision. We are afraid, the learned counsel is again on a weak ground. The words 'conferred on it' in sub clause (b) speaks of conferment of jurisdiction on the Family Court by an enactment. The jurisdiction must be specifically conferred and cannot be assumed to have been conferred. No provision of 1986 Act however, confers any such jurisdiction on the Family Court. On the other hand Section 3(2) of the 1986 Act provides that the application may be made to a Magistrate and not to the Family Court. Apart from this the 1986 Act was enacted subsequent to the Family Court Act and its provisions supersede all earlier enactments. Hence this section must prevail over the Family Courts Act, 1984. Thus an application under Section 3 can lie only to the Magistrate having jurisdiction in the area.

Since no other enactment confers jurisdiction on the Family Court to try applications under the MW Act, a Family Court cannot be held to have jurisdiction to deal with the applications made under the MW Act. Though a Family Court has the jurisdiction, which is exercisable by a Magistrate of first class under Chapter IX of the Code (which relates to order for maintenance of wife, children and parents), the fact remains that an application, made under Section 3 or 4 of the MW Act, is not covered by Chapter IX of the Code. Consequently, a Family Court cannot exercise jurisdiction in respect of matters, which are amenable to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate of First Class, under the MW Act.