Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
Shiyas S, Sajin Manzil – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
WP(CRL.) NO. 276 OF 2022
Decided on : 01-08-2024
JURISDICTION - MUSLIM WOMEN (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS ON DIVORCE) ACT - The court held that the Gram Nyayalaya does not have jurisdiction to entertain applications under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, as such applications are required to be filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court. The court interpreted the relevant provisions of the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008, particularly Sections 11 and 12, which delineate the jurisdiction of the Gram Nyayalaya, concluding that the application was filed in the wrong forum and directing it to be returned for proper presentation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former husband, sought to quash an application filed by the second respondent under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, claiming that the Gram Nyayalaya lacked jurisdiction to hear such applications.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Gram Nyayalaya does not have the jurisdiction to deal with applications under the Act, as these must be filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court. The application was deemed to have been filed in the wrong forum.
Issues: Whether the Gram Nyayalaya has jurisdiction to entertain applications under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the jurisdiction of the Gram Nyayalaya is limited to the offences specified in the First Schedule of the GN Act, and since applications under the Act are not included therein, the Gram Nyayalaya cannot entertain such applications.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Gram Nyayalaya to return the application to the second respondent for presentation before the appropriate forum within a specified timeframe.
JUDGMENT :
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
Petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 application filed in M.C.No.5/2022 before the Gram Nyayalaya, Vellanad, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. Petitioner is the former husband of the second respondent. Though their marriage was solemnised on 05.11.2018, subsequently, by Talaq letters sent on 04.11.2019, 31.12.2019 and 02.03.2020, petitioner dissolved the marriage. In the meantime, the second respondent preferred an application under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), a copy of which is produced as Ext. P1. After receipt of notice in the said application, petitioner has approached this Court questioning the jurisdiction of the Gram Nyayalaya to deal with an application under the Act.
3. According to the petitioner, the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 (for short “the GN Act”) does not confer jurisdiction upon the Gram Nyayalaya to consider a claim under the Act and hence, the application ought to be quashed.
4. I have heard Sri. S. Sunil Mauryan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Nikhil Sankar, the learned counsel for the second respondent, and Sri.Noushad K. A, the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The question relates to the jurisdiction of the Gram Nyayalaya to deal with an application under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 As per the provisions of the said Act, an application under Section 3 has to be preferred before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court. Instead of filing an application before the Magistrate, the second respondent filed Ext.P1 application before the Gram Nyayalaya.
6. Section 11 of the GN Act states that “Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or any other law for the time being in force, the Gram Nyayalaya shall exercise both civil and criminal jurisdiction in the manner and to the extent provided under this Act.” (emphasis supplied). Section 12 of the GN Act dealing with criminal jurisdiction of the Gram Nyayalaya assumes significance and it reads as follows:-
(a) try all offences specified in Part I of the First Schedule; and
(b) try all offences and grant relief, if any, specified under the enactments included in Part II of that Schedule.
(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (1), the Gram Nyayalaya shall also try all such offences or grant such relief under the State Acts which may be notified by the State Government under sub-section (3) of section 14.”
7. In view of Section 12 of the GN Act, the jurisdiction of the Gram Nyayalaya is to try all offences specified in Part 1 of the First Schedule. A reading of the First Schedule to the said Act indicates that an application under the Act is not included therein though an application for an order of maintenance filed under the Cr.PC is specifically mentioned in the schedule. In the absence of inclusion of petitions filed under the Act in the Schedule to the GN Act, no elaborate discussion is required to conclude that the Grama Nyayalaya, as a court of exclusive jurisdiction is not entitled to deal with applications under the Act. Therefore, the application filed by the second respondent as Ext.P1 has been filed before the wrong forum.
8. Though the petitioner has sought for quashing of Ext.P1 application, it is evident that no grounds have been raised for such a relief. The contention advanced on the basis of the wrong forum, can only result in the return of the application to be presented before the proper forum.
9. Since it has already been held that the Gram Nyayalaya does not possess the jurisdiction to deal with an application under Section
The Gram Nyayalaya does not possess jurisdiction to entertain applications under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which must be filed before the Judicial First Class Magi....
The Gram Nyayalaya does not have jurisdiction to hear applications under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, necessitating their return to the proper forum.
Family Courts Act prevails over Gram Nyayalayas Act, barring Grama Nyayalayas from exercising jurisdiction in areas where Family Courts are established for maintenance cases.
The Gram Nyayalaya has jurisdiction to adjudicate maintenance cases under both the Family Courts Act and the Gram Nyayalayas Act, and should handle such matters expeditiously.
Concurrent jurisdiction between Family Courts and Gram Nyayalaya over maintenance orders creates inconsistencies, and only Family Courts can adjudicate such matters to ensure sufficient legal oversig....
The main legal point established is that the Gram Nyayalaya's jurisdiction is limited to specific types of civil cases, and suits falling outside this scope should be adjudicated by a civil court.
Jurisdiction under the Family Courts Act cannot be altered by administrative directions; valid transfers to Gram Nyayalayas under the Gram Nyayalayas Act affirmed without challenging the latter's pro....
The jurisdiction to file a petition under the MWPRD Act is strictly limited to the area where the divorced woman resides, which must be interpreted in the context of her actual and permanent residenc....
No appeal lies against orders under Section 3(3) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, as there is no statutory provision for such an appeal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
