Manmohan Singh, J.:--

1. The plaintiff, Mrs. Amina Bharatram has filed the suit for maintenance and separate residence under Sections 18, 20 & 23 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 as well as for permanent and mandatory injunction and declaration, against the four defendants.

2. Defendant No. 1, Mr. Sumant Bharatram is the husband of the plaintiff. Defendants No. 2 & 3, namely, Dr. Vinay Bharatram and Ms.Panna Bharatram are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the plaintiff and defendant No. 4, Mr. Hemant Bharatram is the brother of defendant No. 1.

3. Few relevant facts are necessary; the same are that the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 were married according to the Hindu Rites and Ceremonies on 5th January, 1994 at Delhi Air Force Officers’ Mess at Dhaula Kuan, New Delhi. From the wedlock, two children were born, namely, Yuv Bharatram on 10th June, 1995 and Rahil Bharatram on 16th November, 1999. The plaintiff along with defendant No. 1 is living at Panchsheel Park, New Delhi. The plaintiff is a housewife, and the children, who are minors, have all along been in her care and custody, as per averments made in the plaint.

It is alleged in the plaint that defendant No. 1 for the past few years has been insisting upon the plaintiff to give him a divorce so as to let him live an independent life. There are various controversies between the husband and the wife. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the suit for maintenance and separate residence under the various provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

4. It appears from the record that various applications are pending for disposal. Two main applications are pressed at this stage; one is I.A. No. 12185/2010 filed by defendant No. 1 under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, for rejection of plaint, on the ground that the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction. The second application is I.A. No. 12186/2010 filed by defendant No. 1 under Section 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (66 of 1984) (in short, called the “FC Act”). Both said applications were taken up on 15th May, 2014. However, when the matter was adjourned for 19th May, 2014, both parties have addressed their submissions only in I.A. No. 12186/2010 as the order to be passed in this application may have some impact in other application.

5. The objections of defendant No. 1 in the said application are that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit which has arisen out of the marital relationship between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. The jurisdiction only lies with the Family Courts, as the same is governed by Section 7 read with Section 8 of the FC Act which bars the jurisdiction of other Courts.

6. The application is strongly opposed by the plaintiff who states that the High Court has the jurisdiction to decide all the matters fall under its original civil jurisdiction. The Family Courts Act does not oust the jurisdiction of this Court. The application is merely a misuse and abuse to the process of the law.

7. In order to appreciate and decide the issues in hand, it is imperative to refer Sections 7 & 8 of the FC Act. The same read as under:-

“7. Jurisdiction. -- (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall --

(a) have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any district Court or any subordinate Civil Court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the Explanation; and

(b) be deemed, for the purposes of exercising such jurisdiction under such law, 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.

Explanation -- The suits and proceedings referred to in this sub-section are suits and proceedings of the following nature, namely:-

(a) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage for a decree of nullity of marriage (declaring the marriage