Important provisions of Civil minor Acts(Part 1)

 

1) Important provisions of motor vehicle Act

https://www.lawweb.in/2019/09/important-provisions-of-motor-vehicle.html

2) Important provisions of The family courts Act 1984

https://www.lawweb.in/2023/09/important-provisions-of-family-courts.html

3) Important provisions of Maharashtra Regional and town planning Act 1966

https://www.lawweb.in/2022/08/important-provisions-of-maharashtra.html

Print Page

Important provisions of PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE ACT 2006,

 2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

(a) “child” means a person who, if a male, has not completed twenty-one years of age, and if a female, has not completed eighteen years of age;

(b) “child marriage” means a marriage to which either of the contracting parties is a child;

(e) “district court” means, in any area for which a Family Court established under Section 3 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (66 of 1984) exists, such Family Court, and in any area for which there is no Family Court but a city civil court exists, that court and in any other area, the principal civil court of original jurisdiction and includes any other civil court which may be specified by the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, as having jurisdiction in respect of the matters dealt with in this Act;

(f) “minor” means a person who, under the provisions of the Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875) is to be deemed not to have attained his majority.

Print Page

Whether family court can entertain a child custody dispute if, under DV Act proceeding husband is restrained from communicating with the child?

Bearing in mind the allegations that were laid by the petitioner the Court notes that the respondent here stood restrained from communicating with the children and the complainant in any manner whatsoever in light of the order passed in the PWDV proceedings. It was further provided in those proceedings that the respondent would not disturb the custody of the children.

This very aspect was noticed and underlined by a learned Judge of this Court in Amit Kumar and another Vs. Charu Makin [2017 SCC OnLine Del 7861] where the Court held:-

10. It is thus evident that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law as an interim measure in the best interest of the child and to avoid any harm to the interest of the child/children, the Court under Section 21 of the PWDV Act can pass order granting temporary custody of the child/children and/or make necessary arrangements for the visit of the child. However, PWDV Act is not a final remedy for the custody and guardianship issues of a minor child. Section 7(g) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 vests jurisdiction in a Family Court to decide suits or proceedings in relation to the

guardianship of a person or the custody of or access to any minor.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 C.R.P. 52/2022 & CM APPL. 18406/2022 (stay)

SHILPA SINGH  Vs VIKAS KHANNA 

CORAM:

 MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

Dated:  13.04.2022

Print Page

Whether family court can try dispute raised by third party to Marriage?

 Having taken note of this aspect of the matter, the factual matrix in the present case would disclose that the respondent herein is not the person who claims a declaration about his own marriage. The very contention that is put forth in the proceedings before the Family Court is that the appellant herein, Smti Nitikona Banarjee, is not the legally wedded wife of his (plaintiff's) brother, Lakshman Banerjee. If that be the position, the parties to the proceedings are not parties to the marriage.

9. Be that as it may. The question that would arise is as to whether in such circumstance the case would fall under Section 7(b) of the Act. In that regard, though in Section 7(b) of the Act the expression "parties to a marriage" does not occur, keeping in view the nature of relief that is provided before the Family Court, it would be only between the parties to a marriage to seek for such declaration for their benefit against the person who claims or contends not to be a party to the marriage. If that aspect of the matter is kept in view, a third party questioning the marriage of any other party would not be entitled to maintain proceedings before the Family Court. In any event, if such a party has any grievance, the remedy is available before the ordinary civil court by filing a suit therein.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI

Mat. App. 29/2016

Decided On: 01.11.2018

Nitikona Banarjee Vs.  Ram Prasad Banerjee

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.S. Bopanna, C.J. and Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

Citation: AIR 2019 (NOC) 452 Gau

Print Page

Whether appeal is maintainable against interlocutory order passed by family court under guardian and wards Act?

As discussed above, the coordinate High Courts are of the view

that the plain reading of the provisions of the G & W Act reflect

that an order passed under section 12 of the said act is an

interlocutory order and hence, an appeal is barred by section 47

of the G & W Act.

26. To conclude, the Family Court Act came into force in the year

1984, i.e. 2 years after the pronouncement of Shah Babulal

Khimji (Supra) by the Apex Court. Nowhere was it intended by

the legislature to bring an appeal under Section 19(1) of the

Family Courts against an order passed under Section 12 of the

G & W Act nor does the G & W Act provide for an appeal

against order passed under Section 12 of the G & W Act.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment pronounced on: 1st October, 2019

 MAT.APP.(F.C.) 211/2017 & CM APPL. 44390/2017

COLONEL RAMESH PAL SINGH Vs SUGHANDHI AGGARWAL

CORAM:

 MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

 MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

Print Page

Whether judgment passed by civil court will be nullity if family court is working in that area?

However, the issue is, when no objection was raised to the jurisdiction in the trial Court but was raised in the Ist & IInd appellate Courts, whether it is curable irregularity and whether the judgment & decree would be binding unless prejudice is shown to the parties. If the establishment of Family Court and vesting of exclusive jurisdiction with the Family Court is treated at par with the territorial jurisdiction, then the decision passed by Civil Judge Sr. Divn., will not be a nullity. However, if it is subject-wise exclusion of jurisdiction u/s. 8, the decision will be a nullity.

10. Learned counsel Shri. Patil placed reliance on Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat vs. Dir., Health Services, Haryana and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0703/2013 : AIR 2013 SC 3060, wherein it is laid down that, if the Court passes a decree having no jurisdiction over the matter, it would amount to nullity as the matter goes to the roots of the cause. Such an issue can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. The finding of a Court or Tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/inexecutable once the forum is found to have no jurisdiction. Similarly, if a Court/Tribunal inherently lacks jurisdiction, acquiescence of party equally should not be permitted to perpetuate and perpetrate, defeating the legislative animation. The Court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the Statute. In such eventuality the doctrine of waiver also does not apply.

11. Section 8 is specific. It lays down that, where a family court is established in any area, no district Court or any subordinate civil Court referred to in sub-section (1) of section 7 shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of any suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the explanation. Similarly, the jurisdiction of the Magistrate court is also ousted by the sub-clause (b).

15. The specific ouster of jurisdiction of the courts in respect of area for which the Family court has been established u/s. 8 shows that, the subject-wise jurisdiction of Civil Judge Sr. Divn., has been ousted and it is not a simple question of territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, the decisions rendered by the courts having no subject-wise jurisdiction will be a nullity.

16. In fact, the Civil Judge Senior Division should have been more careful and should not have entertained the petition and should have returned it for presentation before the proper court. Whenever in any city there is a family court, all Civil Judges (Sr. Divn.) should see whether the cause of action for the matrimonial petitions filed before them arises within the area for which Family Court has been established or not. If it is established, the Civil Judges (Sr. Divn.) should return the plaint and should avoid unnecessary wastage of time, money and energy of the litigants. As Sec. 8 of the Family Courts Act has taken away the jurisdiction, the decisions rendered by the Civil Judges (Sr. Divn.) and District Courts are nullity.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Second Appeal No. 237 of 2016

Decided On: 02.11.2018

 Ravindra Sukhdev Ghadge  Vs. Swati Ravindra Ghadge and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.M. Dhavale, J.

Citation: 2019(2) MHLJ 110

Print Page

Whether court can return original documents during pendency of suit?

 A perusal of the impugned order indicates that there is much substance in what has been contended on behalf of the Petitioner. Not only the interest of justice but also rule of prudence required the learned Judge of the Family Court to return the original power of attorney, once the proceedings were instituted, by permitting the Petitioner to place on record a certified copy of the record. The learned Judge of the Family Court could have also directed the Petitioner to produce the original power of attorney as and when necessary. Considering the provisions of Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the procedure as contemplated under the Civil Procedure Code, however, subject to the provisions of the Family Court Act, would become applicable. Thus the procedure of law which is well established and required to be followed by a Civil Court would certainly be applicable to the proceedings before the Family Court in such matters, as Section 10 of the Family Courts Act would contemplate, and more certainly where a prayer is made merely to seek return of the original power of attorney as in the present case. Thus learned Counsel for the Petitioner has appropriately placed reliance on the provisions of Order 13, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and more particularly sub-clause (a)(ii) to the Proviso under sub-rule (1) which provides that a document may be returned at any time earlier before the proceedings are disposed of, to the persons applying therefor, delivers to the proper officer for being substituted for the original with a certified copy, if a request is made by the party to the suit and in case of any other person, an ordinary copy which has been examined, compared and certified in the manner mentioned in sub-rule (2) of Rule 17 of Order VII, and undertakes to produce the original, if required to do so.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 21899 of 2016

Decided On: 12.01.2017

Sangeeta Shrikant Pingale  Vs. Shrikant Snankar Pingale

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

G.S. Kulkarni, J.

Citation: 2017(2) ABR 272

Print Page

Whether family court has jurisdiction to entertain divorce petition under special marriage Act?

Under Section 13(2), the aforesaid Certificate dated 20th August, 1998
is deemed to be conclusive evidence of the fact that marriage under the Act
had been solemnized and that all formalities respecting the signatures of
witnesses have been complied with.
11.3. The Certificate of Marriage issued by the Marriage Officer under the
Special Marriage Act is a conclusive proof of their valid marriage under the
Special Marriage Act and the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the
jurisdiction of the Family Court to entertain and try the petition for divorce
instituted by the respondent. The petitioner’s challenge to the jurisdiction of
the learned Family Court to entertain and try the petition under the Special
Marriage Act is barred by law.
11.4. The learned Family Court has clear jurisdiction to entertain and try the
respondent’s petition as both the parties are governed by the Special
Marriage Act.
11.5. The petitioner’s contention that the respondent embraced Islam prior
to 20th August, 1998 is contradictory and mutually destructive to the
petitioner’s admission in the written statement that the respondent was
Hindu at the time of the marriage on 20th August, 1998. The petitioner has
neither withdrawn the admission made in the written statement nor given
any justification for setting up a contradictory plea. In that view of the
matter, the respondent cannot be permitted to set up a contradictory and
mutually destructive plea in the written statement by way of an amendment.
11.6. Even assuming that the respondent had embraced Islam prior to 20th
August, 1998, it would not in any manner, effect the jurisdiction of the
learned Family Court to entertain and try the petition for divorce under the
Special Marriage Act.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 23rd March, 2018
 CM(M) 140/2017
M  Vs  A 

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

Print Page

Whether wife can file Civil Suit for recovery of stridhan?

A. Family Courts Act (66 of 1984), Sections 7, 8 & 24--Suit for return of Stridhan--Suit for return of Stridhan without there being any relief as envisaged under Section 9, 10 or 13 of Hindu Marriage Act is maintainable.

5. Family Courts Act (66 of 1984), Sections 7, & 24--Suit for return of Stridhan--Maintainability of suit against relatives of husband Suit for return of stridhan filed against husband and in laws--Family Court has jurisdiction to consider the suit of the respondent in respect of return of stridhan and was not required to file two separate suits, i.e. one against her husband before Family Court and another before Ordinary Civil Court against, her in-laws.

Equivalent Citation: AIR2012MP142, I(2013)DMC268, ILR[2012]MP974

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR

F.A. No. 405/2011

Decided On: 06.03.2012

Om Prakash Tiwary Vs. Smt. Neetu Tiwary

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Mr. Justice K.K. Lahoti & Mrs. Justice Vimla Jain

Print Page

When suit filed by wife for recovery of stridhan is maintainable after passing of divorce decree?

Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the earlier suit in which decree was granted was instituted by the husband and not by the wife. While the present suit is filed by wife. As such, it cannot be said that the provision of Order II Rule 2 gets attracted to the present case. Sub-section (3) of Rule 2 of Order II of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, requires that a person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action may sue for all or any of such reliefs but if he so omits, except with the leave of the court to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief so omitted. Since in the present case, wife was not the plaintiff in the suit filed earlier there is no question of holding that the subsequent suit filed by her is not maintainable as the cause of action arisen to husband was different to the cause of action arisen to wife.

6. Apart from above error of law committed by the trial court, it has further committed the error of law by observing that in view of the fact that application under Section 27 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was not moved in the suit decided, no fresh suit can be maintained. Perusal of Section 27 of Hindu Marriage Act clearly shows that it pertains to the disposal of property belonged jointly by both the husband and wife. The provision does not cover the Stridhan. Stridhan is wife's personal property owned exclusively by her.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Decided On: 22.05.2008

Appellants: Meeta Salani D/o Sri Kailash Narayan Salani
Vs.
Respondent: Ravikant Sharma S/o Sri Dharm Dutt Sharma

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Prafulla C. Pant and Dharam Veer, JJ.

 Citation: II(2009)DMC194, 2008(3)UC1563, 2008(1)U.D.630

Print Page

What is period of limitation for filing appeal against order of family court?

                 " The learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to the amendment to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 which has been incorporated by the Marriage Law (Amendment) Act, 2003 and notified in the official gazette on 23.12.2003 wherein it is provided under Section 5, that in Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, in Sub-Section (4), for the words "period of thirty days", the words "period of ninety days" shall be substituted which provides for appeal from decrees and orders made by the courts under any provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In view of this, the limitation provided under the special statute which would govern the field rather than provided under the Family Courts Act under Section 19, Chapter V, which provides for the period of limitation in respect of judgments and orders passed by the Family Court on the various subjects which the Family Court is competent to pass is in the nature of general provision and, therefore, the period of limitation provided under the Special Act would override the period of limitation provided under the Family Courts Act, 1894 and, therefore, as the appeals have been filed within a period of 90 days, they are to be held to be within limitation and, therefore, the objection does not survive and the applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeals are unwarranted as the appeals are filed within 90 days which is the period provided under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The office is directed to register the appeals and list them for admission. S.O. to 3.5.2007."                                                                                       


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 448 OF 2014
IN
FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 142 OF 2014

Mrs. Sonia Kunwar Singh Bedi Vs. Mr. Kunwar Singh Bedi

CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI AND
SHRI. A.K.MENON, JJ.

PRONOUNCED ON : DEC. 17, 2014
JUDGMENT: [PER SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] :
Citation: 2015(1)ABR697, 2015(2)ALLMR707, 2015(1)MhLj954,AIR 2015(NOC)520 BOM

Print Page