The Family Court, established under Section 3 of the Act of 1984, has exclusive jurisdiction over suits or proceedings for maintenance, including applications under Section 19 of the Act of 1956, and Civil Courts do not have jurisdiction in such matters.

Iqbal Ahmed Ansari, J.

1. This revision puts to challenge the order, dated 26.9.2008, passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 3, Kamrup, in Misc. (J) Case No. 54 of 2008, arising out of Title Suit No. 242 of 2007, whereby the learned Court below has rejected the application made, under Section 9 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (in short, the Act of 1956) by the present petitioner, claiming maintenance, for herself as well as for her minor child, the ground for rejection being that the application, made under Section 19 of the Act of 1956, is not maintainable inasmuch as it is the Family Court, at Guwahati, which has the jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 19 of the Act of 1956 and not the Court of Civil Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati. This application, seeking direction for maintenance, had been filed, it may be pointed out, in the suit, which stands instituted by the petitioners, seeking partition of the landed properties, which are said to have been left behind by late Anup Chandra Kalita, father-in-law of the petitioner No. 1 and grand-father of the petitioner No. 2.

2. I have heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs-petitioners.

3. Before entering into the merit of the present revision, which has arisen out of an application made under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the facts of the case need to be taken note of. The relevant facts are, in brief, set out as under:

(i) The petitioner No. 1 is the widow of Late Angshuman Kalita, who died on 10.12.2004. The petitioner No. 2 is the minor son of the petitioner, No. 1. After the death of her husband, the petitioner No. 1 continued to live with her, minor son at her matrimonial home. After the death of her father-in-law on 5.2.2005, the petitioner No. 1 was subjected to cruelty, physically as well as mentally, by her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law. Neither the petitioner No. 1 nor her minor child (i.e., the petitioner No. 2) was given the benefit of, or any share in, the properties left by her father-in-law, though, according to what the petitioners claim, the petitioners are, under the Hindu law, entitled to receive, as legal heirs of deceased Angshuman Kalita, a share in the property, which the father of the said deceased has left behind. With these grievances, the petitioners instituted the suit aforementioned seeking partition of the properties left by deceased Anup Chandra Kalita, father of deceased Angshuman Kalita.

(ii) As the petitioners were not provided with proper food and clothing, they filed an application, under Section 19 of the Act of 1956, for direction to the defendants (who included, widow and daughters of the deceased Anup Chandra Kalita), to give maintenance to the petitioner No. 1 as well as her minor child, i.e., petitioner No. 2. This petition having been rejected, as indicated above, on the ground that the application, in question, can be adjudicated upon by the Family Court, at Guwahati, and not by other civil Courts, at Guwahati, the petitioners have, now, filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. Choudhury has submitted that the learned Court below has wrongly held that the application, made under Section 19 of the Act of 1956, was not maintainable on the ground that the Court of the Civil Judge, at Guwahati, does not have the jurisdiction in such matters. In support of his submission that the Civil Court, at Guwahati, has the jurisdiction to entertain, in a case of present nature, an application seeking maintenance under Section 19 of the Act of 1956, Mr. Choudhury submits that the Family Court Act, 1984 (in short, the Act of 1984), deals with the disputes between a man and a woman, who claim to be husband and wife, and, consequently, a Family Court cannot deal with a dispute, which does not arise between a husband and wife. In the present case, points out Mr. Choudhury, the suit for partition has b