Key Points: - The Civil Court has jurisdiction to execute a Family Court decree under Section 18(3) of the Family Courts Act, and there is no necessity to send the decree to another court for execution (!) (!) . - Section 7 and its Explanation exclude Civil Court jurisdiction only in certain marriage-related proceedings; here the appellant was not a party to the marriage or claiming maintenance, so Civil Court jurisdiction is not ousted (!) (!) . - Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act can apply to charges over property even in non-suit contexts; a charge claimed on the plaint schedule property bars transfers after filing, and a bonafide purchaser cannot prevail against the decree for charge (!) (!) (!) . - The decree obtained against the second respondent was not shown to be collusive; the suit was filed earlier (1993) and the appellant purchased in 1996; the record does not support a finding of collusion (!) (!) . - The decree provides a charge on the plaint schedule property for maintenance; the appellant is not entitled to challenge the correctness of the decree as he is not a party to the suit (!) (!) . - The appeal regarding execution is dismissed; the reasoning relies on lis pendens principles and Section 52 applicability to charges (!) . - The property purchase after filing of the maintenance suit is subject to the charge created by the decree; thus the appellant cannot claim priority over the charge (!) .

How to determine whether the earlier proceedings were without jurisdiction under the Family Courts Act?

What is the effect of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act on a charge created by a maintenance decree and on transfers after filing of the suit?

What is the court's conclusion regarding the execution of a Family Court decree by a Civil Court when the Civil Court has jurisdiction to execute it?