ORAL JUDGMENT : - Heard Mr. D. K. Dubey, learned counsel for the Applicant. Counsel for the Respondent absent.

2. The civil revision application is directed against the order dated 11 - 2 2002 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, whereby application of the applicant under Order 7, Rule 11 is rejected.

3. Mr. Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the non applicant (mother) has filed an application for custody of minor children und section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The applicant filed application for rejection of the said application filed by non - applicant und section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, on the ground that the District Judge does not have jurisdiction to entertain the said application in view of provisions of section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant has contended that a suit proceedings in relation to the guardianship of a person or custody of or access t any minor are required to be initiated in the Family Court in view of the provisions of section 7(1)(g) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 after the said Ac came into force and the application under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for custody of minor is not maintainable. It is contended that the Additional Sessions Judge without considering the provisions of section 7 of the Family Courts Act, rejected the application of the applicant and therefore, the order impugned cannot be sustained in law.

5. In the backdrop of the abovereferred facts, the question which arose for determination in the present revision application is, whether the application filed by the applicant for custody of children under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 is maintainable in view of the provisions of section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 ?

6. At the outset, it will be appropriate to consider the purpose for which the Family Court Act, 1984, carne into existence and the object it has to achieve. The Law Commission in its 59th Report had stressed that in dealing with disputes concerning the family, the Court ought to adopt an approach radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings and that it should make reasonable efforts for settlement of dispute before the commencement of the trial. In 1976 the Code of Civil Procedure was also amended to provide for a special provision to be adopted in suits or proceedings relating to matters concerning family, but not much change in the attitude of the Court was noticed. Therefore, the need was felt to establish Family Courts for speedy settlement of family disputes. Accordingly the Family Court Bill was introduced in the Parliament.

The Bill inter alia, seeks to -

(a)……….

(b)………..

(c) ……….

(d) exclusively provided with the jurisdiction of the Family Courts the matters relating to -

(i) matrimonial relief, including nullity of marriage, judicial separation, divorce, restitution of conjugal rights, Or declaration as to the validity of marriage or as to the matrimonial status or any person;

(ii) the property of the spouses or of either of them;

(iii) declaration as to the legitimacy of any person;

(iv) guardianship of a person or the custody of any minor;

(v) maintenance, including proceedings under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

(e) make it obligatory on the part of the Family Court to endeavour, in the first instance to effect a reconciliation or a settlement between the parties to a family dispute. During this stage, the proceedings will be informal and rigid rules of procedure shall not apply;

(f) provide for the association of social welfare agencies, counsellors, etc., during conciliation stage and also to secure the service of medical and welfare experts;

(g) provide that the parties to a dispute before a Family Court shall not be entitled, as of right, to be represented by legal practitioner. However, the Court may, in the interest of justice, seek assistance of a lega

Click Here to Read the rest of this document