Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil revision application filed by Vimalashram Gharkul of Amprapali Utkarsha Sangh, a registered public trust, through its Secretary, against an order dated 11.2.2002 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. The respondent, Smt. Jyoti Banson Joseph, had filed an application for custody of minor children under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 before the District Judge. The applicant trust filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking rejection of the custody application on the ground that the District Judge lacked jurisdiction in view of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the applicant's application. The applicant then filed the present revision. The sole legal issue was whether an application under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 is maintainable after the Family Courts Act, 1984 came into force. The applicant argued that Section 7(1)(g) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 confers exclusive jurisdiction on Family Courts over matters relating to guardianship and custody of minors, and therefore the application before the District Judge was not maintainable. The respondent did not appear. The Court analyzed the purpose of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which was enacted to promote conciliation and secure speedy settlement of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs. Section 7(1)(g) explicitly states that Family Courts have jurisdiction over suits or proceedings relating to the guardianship of a person or custody of or access to any minor. The Court held that the Family Courts Act, 1984 overrides the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 in respect of such matters. Consequently, the application under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 was not maintainable before the District Judge. The Court allowed the revision application, set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, and directed that the application for custody be returned to the respondent for presentation before the appropriate Family Court.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Guardianship and Custody - Jurisdiction - Section 7(1)(g) Family Courts Act, 1984 and Section 25 Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 - The issue was whether an application for custody of minor children under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 is maintainable after the enactment of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The Court held that in view of Section 7(1)(g) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which provides that Family Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over suits or proceedings relating to the guardianship of a person or custody of or access to any minor, the application under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 is not maintainable before the District Judge. The order of the Additional Sessions Judge rejecting the application for rejection of the custody application was set aside. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an application for custody of minor children under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 is maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
Final Decision
The civil revision application is allowed. The order dated 11.2.2002 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur is set aside. The application filed by the respondent under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 is directed to be returned to the respondent for presentation before the appropriate Family Court.
Law Points
- Family Courts Act
- 1984 overrides Guardian and Wards Act
- 1890 for custody of minor children
- Section 7(1)(g) Family Courts Act
- 1984 confers exclusive jurisdiction on Family Court
- Application under Section 25 Guardian and Wards Act not maintainable after Family Courts Act
