I.A. Ansari, J.

1. Because of the fact that all these three writ petitions, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have raised identical questions of law and are based on substantially similar facts, all these writ petitions, on the request made by the learned counsel for the parties concerned, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. Before I formulate the questions, which have been raised for determination in these three writ petitions, it would be apposite that the material facts, giving rise to these writ petitions, filed by three female litigants, are taken note of. With this end in view, let me set out the material facts of each of these three writ petitions, which are not in controversy.

BACKGROUND FACTS :

WP (C) 577/2010

(i) The petitioner herein initiated a proceeding, in the Family Court, Agartala, by filing an application, under Section 125 CrPC, seeking maintenance for her own self and for their minor female child. This application gave rise to Misc. Case No. 116/2009 under Section 125 CrPC. Aggrieved by the order, dated 30.11.2002, passed in the said maintenance proceeding, the petitioner impugned the said order by way of criminal revision before this Court. However, having, instituted the proceeding for maintenance, which, as indicated above, stood impugned in the revision before this Court, the petitioner has come to know that the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Family Courts Act'), has not been brought into force, in the State of Tripura, by the Central Government, till the date of hearing of the writ petition, namely, WP (C) 577/2010.

(ii) In the meanwhile, however, the petitioner's husband has instituted two separate suits, at Andaman, one of the suits being for custody of the child and the other one for a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the parties concerned. On a petition being moved by the petitioner seeking transfer of the said suits from Andaman to Agartala, Tripura, Transfer Petition (C) Nos. 56-57 of 2010 arose and, by order, dated 09.08.2010, the Transfer Petition was allowed by the Supreme Court transferring the suits, namely. Matrimonial Suit No. 75/2010 (Dr. Avijit Roy Vs. Smt. Tania Kar), and Guardian Case No. 12 of 2009 (Dr. Avijit Roy Vs. Smt. Tania Kar), pending in the Court of District Judge, at Port Blair, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, to District/Family Court, at Agartala, Tripura.

(iii) Thus, though Family Court has been set up, in the State of Tripura, by the State Government of Tripura, in purported exercise of its powers under Section 6 of the Family Courts Act, by Notification, dated 30.11.2002, in consultation with the jurisdictional High Court, the Family Court, at Agartala, has no jurisdiction to exercise the powers, embodied in the Family Court Act, and, in consequence thereof, an order, passed by the Family Court, at Agartala, granting or refusing to grant maintenance and/or an order granting or refusing to grant restitution of conjugal rights and/or a decree of divorce dissolving marriage by or refusing to grant a decree and/or an order granting alimony, permanent or temporary, all are of beyond jurisdiction of the Family Court, Agartala, and such orders are, therefore, complete nullity in the eyes of law and cannot be enforced. The present writ petition was instituted at a time, when the proceedings in the suits aforementioned, which, on being transferred, as mentioned above, from Port Blair to the Family Court, Agartala, were in progress. By order, dated 30.11.2011, passed in this writ petition, all further proceedings of the suits, pending in the Family Court, have been stayed by a Single Judge of this Court. In the meanwhile, however, the proceedings have been concluded resulting into a decree of dissolution of marriage.

(iv) With the help of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ, in the nature of mandamus, setting aside the impugned Notification