JUDGMENT - V.A. MOHTA, J.:---This is an appeal under section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (the F.C. Act). The appellant is the husband - Noor Jamaal. The respondent is the divorced wife - Haseena Bano. Impugned order passed by the Family Court is for payment of reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to the wife and minor daughter Jasmeen, payment of mehr amount to the wife and for delivery of properties, under section 3(2) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (the MW Act).

2. Crux of the matter is whether the Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings under the MW Act.

3. The point arises against the following backdrop :

The marriage took place on 25th December, 1983. A female child was born on 5th October 1987. Divorce took place on 25th March, 1988. Wife Haseena Bano filed an application under section 3(2) of the MW Act claiming several reliefs including maintenance for the child on 5th October, 1988 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Borivli, Bombay. It was registered as Special Application No. 90/MN of 1988. On 16th November, 1988 she filed Misc. Application in the said proceedings repeating her prayer for maintenance for minor daughter Jasmeen. It was styled as an application under section 125, Cri.P.C. The learned Magistrate suo motu transferred the proceedings to the Family Court at Bombay established on 7th October, 1989. The Family Court by its order dated 22nd December, 1989 transferred back the proceedings to the Magistrate. On 11th April, 1990 husband - Noor Jamaal made an application before the Magistrate for transfer of the proceedings to the Family Court, in view of the recent decision rendered on 9th March, 1990 by the learned Single Judge of this Court (Kamal V. M. Allaudin v. Raja Shaikh)1, 1990(2) Bom.C.R. 335, inter alia, observing that the Family Court has jurisdiction even to entertain and try proceedings under the MW Act. The wife Haseena Bano did not object to the prayer obviously because she could not in view of the aforesaid decision of this Court. The proceedings were transferred to the Family Court by order dated 22nd August, 1990. Impugned order was passed by the Family Court on 11th January, 1991.

4. Section 7(1) of the FC Act confers upon the Family Court jurisdiction exercisable by the District Court or subordinate Civil Court in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature mentioned in the Explanation. Under section 7(2)(a) the Family Court is vested with the jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of the First Class under Chapter IX of the Cri. P.C.and under section 7(2)(b) with such other jurisdiction as my be conferred on it by any other enactment. Section 8 provides that where a Family Court is established, no Court or Magistrate mentioned in section 7 shall have or exercise jurisdiction mentioned therein and all pending matters shall stand transferred to the Family Court.

5. Section 3 of the MW Act creates certain rights in favour of the divorced Muslim wife and also provides for complete machinery to get the reliefs conferred under the Act. First Class Magistrate under the Cri. P.C. is the adjudicating as well as the executing authority. The short MW Act containing only 7 sections, is a complete Code into itself in respect of rights of divorced Muslim wife conferred under section 3. Rule 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Rules, 1986 made under section 6 of the MW Act, provides for recording of evidence in a manner specified for summary trials under the Cri.P.C. The content and width of Jurisdiction of the First Class Magistrate under Chapter IX of Cri.P.C. relating to the order for maintenance of wife, children and parents is quite distinct from the jurisdiction of the First Class Magistrate under the MW Act. Even the procedure is different.

6. Proceedings under the MW Act, therefore, do not fall either under section 7(1) or section 7(2)(a) of the FC Act. Sub-section (2)(b) of section 7 provides for co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document