Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A.A. Cazi, J.
Kanak Vinod Mehta... Plaintiff.
Versus
Vinod Dulerai Mehta ... Defendant.
Suit No. 199 of 1989, decided on 17-7-1990.
(A)Family Courts Act, 1984, Sec. 7---Family Court---Jurisdiction---Conditions required for.
Advocates appeared :
J.I. Mehta with Dwarkadas i/b Smetham Byrne Lambert Dubash, for the plaintiff.
S.R. Simen with Shailesh Parikh i/b Parikh Co., for the defendant.
Section 7-Conditions required for family Court to have jurisdiction. Held-Two conditions are required for the Family Court to have jurisdiction viz.,(1) the suit or proceeding should be to the nature referred to in the Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 7 and (ii) the jurisdiction in respect of the suits and proceedings of the nature as aforesaid must be exercisable by any District Court or any subordinate Civil Court under any law for the time being in farce. If these two conditions are fulfilled then only the Family Court has jurisdiction and then it is the Family Court which shall. under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 7, be deemed to be a district Court, or as the case may be, such subordinate Civil Court for the area to which the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends in other words, in the matters referred to in the Explanation to sub-Section (1) of Section 7, the Family Court steps in where otherwise the district Court or any subordinate Civil Court would step in.
Sections 7, 8. and 10-Disputes relating to marriage and family affairs Whether High Court, District Courts and Subordinate Courts hare jurisdictions.
Held-There is nothing in the Act which clearly or unambiguously indicates the intention of the Parliament to oust the jurisdiction of the High Court in regard to categories of suits and proceedings mentioned in the Explanation to sub-Section (1) of Section 7. the words that are used apply is clear and unambiguous terms only to the jurisdiction of the District and subordinate Court i. e., jurisdiction of District and Subordinate Courts is barred.
Sections 7, 8 and 10 – Whether on establishment of Family Court, High has ceased to have jurisdiction on its original side in respect of suit, referred to in Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 7.
Held-Jurisdiction of High Court on its original side not ousted in regard to said suits and proceedings by any of provisions contained in Act. High Court shall continue to exercise jurisdiction vested in it under Letters Patent and all other laws notwithstanding provisions of Section 7 and Section 8 of the Act.
Section 7 (1) Explanation and 8-Jurisdiction of High Court-Suit by wife against husband-Seeking injunction restraining defendant husband from disposing of matrimonial home in which she was entitled to undivided right, title and interest and to reside therein.
Held-Suit invited joint family property and Karta thereof. Not a suit or proceeding between parties to a marriage with respect to property of parties or either of them Such a suit not falling within Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 7 and hence not stood transferred to Family Court.
(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the plaintiff is entitled to an undivided right title and interest in the said matrimonial home being Unit No. 4, in Chancellor Court, Carmichael Road, Bombay-400 026 and that the plaintiff is entitled to reside therein without any let or hindrance from any quarter Whatsoever :
(b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the plaintiff is entitled to the maintenance of the Rs. 17,000/- per month form the defendant for the maintenance of the plaintiff and their son Harshraj over and above the other expenses such as flat and lift maintenance charges, telephone bills including, superphone STD and trunk charges, electricity charges, and a chauffer driven car and the expenses pertaining to the maintenance and repairs of the car, petrol bills, insurance charges, taxes, salary of the driver etc. Which were previously being paid by the defendant directly;
(c) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a permanent order of injunction restraining the defendant, his family members, servants and agents from in any manner dealing with or disposing of or parting with possession of his right , title and interest in the matrimonial home being Unit No. 4 of chancellor Court situate at Charmichael Road, Bombay 400 026 and /or from in any manner inducting any third person into the said premises and or from in any manner interfering with or disturbing the plaintiff's right, title and interest and use and occupation of the said premises;
(d) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order and decree the defendant to pay a sum of Rs. 17,000/- per month to the plaintiff being the maintenance charges of the plaintiff and her son Harshraj over and above the other expenses such as flat and lift maintenance charges, electricity charges, telephone charges including superphone STD and trunk charges, and a chauffer driven car and the expenses pertaining to the maintenance and repairs of the car, petrol bills, insurance charges, taxes, salary of the driver etc. Which were being paid by the defendant directly ;
(e) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order and decree that the defendant to hand over to the plaintiff insurance policies, books of account, cheque books, counter-foils of cheque books, income -tax and wealth-tax returns, shares of Ficom Organic Ltd., the reliance Industries Ltd. etc.
In the body of the plaint the plaintiff has referred to Unit No. 4 in Chancellor Court, Carmichael Road, Bombay-400 026 as her matrimonial home. She has further averred as follows:
"She was married to the defendant on 26th February, 1970 according to Hindu rites. On 15th February, 1973 there was a son born from this marriage, who is named Harshraj. In April 1987, the defendant's father, i.e. the plaintiff's father -in-law took a Power of attorney from the plaintiff. In January/February 1988 the defendant become aggressive and started treating the plaintiff in a rude manner. On 22nd February, 1988 the plaintiff was deprived of the use of the motor car, telephone and servant and the defendant started to engage detectives to shadow the plaintiff. There was acrimonious correspondence carried on between the parties from 17th March, 1988 to 30th November, 1988. The defendant has stopped paying for the household expenses to the plaintiff. He has openly stated that he would try to drive the plaintiff and Harshraj to the street. The household bills of March 1988 amounting to Rs. 15,000/- have remained unpaid. The plaintiff's matrimonial home is in Bombay. The defendant stays in Bombay. The cause of action has arisen in Bombay. For the purposes of Court fees and jurisdiction the plaintiff values her claim in prayers (a), (c) and (e) at Rs. 300/- each and prayer (b) and (d) at Rs. 2,04,000/- being the value of the annual maintenance. With these averments the plaintiff has asked for the rel
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
