1990 Supreme(Kar) 686
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
N. Venkatachala and S.A. Hakeem, JJ.
Ashraya and others —Appellant
Vs.
Jan-Erik Lundqvist and others —Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal Nos. FR 11612 and 12574 of 1989
Decided on : 30-03-1990
Advocate appeared:
Mr. Leslie D'Silva, Shanthi Chacko, R. Narayanappa, T.A. Ramachandraiah, for the Appellant
The main legal point established in the judgment is that proceedings seeking appointment of a guardian for a minor and permission to remove the minor to a foreign country for adoption fall under the jurisdiction of the Family Court established under the Family Courts Act, 1984.
Headnote:
G & W Act - Proceedings under Sections 7 and 26 - Family Court Act, 1984
Fact of the Case:
The appeals involved petitions filed under Sections 7 and 26 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking appointment of a guardian for a destitute child and permission to remove the child to a foreign country for adoption. The issue was whether the Family Court had jurisdiction over these proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the proceedings fell under Clause (g) of the explanation to Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and thus the Family Court had jurisdiction over the matter. The Court affirmed the order directing the petitions to be presented before the Family Court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act fell under the jurisdiction of the Family Court established under the Family Courts Act, 1984.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the nature of the proceedings, seeking appointment of a guardian for a minor and permission to remove the minor to a foreign country for adoption, fell under Clause (g) of the explanation to Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and thus the Family Court had jurisdiction over the matter.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the order directing the petitions to be presented before the Family Court was affirmed.
N. Venkatachala, J.—These appeals are preferred by petitioners in two Guardians & Wards cases against the common order dated 22-9-1989 made in 26 such clubbed cases by the Court of the XIX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore ("Court of City Civil Judge"), directing return of the petitions filed by them under Sections 7 and 26 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 ("the G & W Act"), as per Rule 10 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("the Code"), at the same time requiring the petitioners to avail of the provision in Rule 10-A of Order VII of the Code.
2.The point, rather of considerable importance, which arises for our decision in these appeals, is whether the proceedings in the petitions filed by the appellants-petitioners in the Court of City Civil Judge (the District Court) under Sections 7 and 26 of the G & W Act, are proceedings of the nature falling under Clause (g) of the explanation to Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 ("the Act"), respecting which the Family Court established under the Act shall have and exercise jurisdiction.
3. As the history of the Family Court and the salient aspects of the Act providing for establishment of Family Court could prove to be of considerable advantage in the rendering of our decision on the said point, we shall briefly refer to them at the out-set.
4. Law Commission of India ("the Law Commission"), in its Fifty-fourth Report on the Code forwarded to Government of India in the year 1973, while recommending introduction of a new Order, Order XXXII- A, into the Code to deal with matters relating to family, gave reasons there for in Chapter 32A of that Report thus :
"32A. 2. In the administration of justice in disputes relating to the family, one has to keep in mind the human relationship with which one is dealing. The objective of family counselling, as a method of achieving the ultimate object of preservation of the family, is to be kept in the forefront.
32A. 3. Litigation concerning or, involving affairs of the family, therefore, requires a special approach, in view of the serious emotional aspects involved. For this sensitive area of personal relationship, our ordinary judicial procedure is not ideally suited. As Sir Garfield Barwick (then Attorney-General of Australia), said in the debates on the Matrimonial Clauses Bill, 1959, the Judge not unnaturally feels reticent about intruding into the human relationship of those who come before him; and the parties themselves so often enter into a conspiracy of silence, where their innermost secrets are concerned.
32A. 4. It is now being increasingly realised that-
(a) as far as possible, an integrated broad based service to families in trouble, should become a part of the Court system;
(b) the existing court structure should be so organised that one single court should deal with the problem of preserving the families ; and
(c) the conventional procedure dominated by the adversary system may not be appropriate for disputes concerning the family.
32A. 5. Many of these matters are outside the scope of this Report; moreover, it will require considerable time and effort to re-mould the legal system to make it an effective instrument for dealing with them. Nevertheless, it is felt that so far as the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, it may be desirable to have special provisions on some matters, --provisions which highlight the need for adopting a different approach, where matters concerning the family are at issue, including the need for efforts to bring about an amicable settlement."
5. Then the Law Commission, in its Fifty-ninth Report on Hindu Marriage Act and Special Marriage Act, forwarded to Government of India in the year 1974, expressed its view on the need of establishment of Family Courts to deal with matters concerning the family by adoption of a human approach thus :
"In our Report on the Code of Civil Procedure, we have had occasion to emphasise that in dealing with disputes concerning the