The exclusive jurisdiction of Family Courts under the Family Courts Act, 1984 to deal with matters relating to the guardianship of a person or the custody of or access to any minor cannot be overridden by the non obstante clause in Section 21 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The petitioner has preferred this Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. against the order dated 22.02.2014 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan in Criminal Appeal No.96/2013 whereby the learned appellate Court by dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner has upheld and affirmed the order dated 21.09.2013 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate No.12, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Complaint Case No.21/2011. By its order dated 21.9.2013, the learned trial Court granted visitation rights to the respondent to meet the minor child of the parties.

2. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner-wife filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 2005) for various reliefs against her husband the respondent and his family members. During the pendency of the aforesaid application, the respondent-husband filed an application under Section 21 of the Act of 2005 praying therein that permanent custody of minor child of the parties may be given to him. In the alternative, it was prayed that visitation rights may be granted to him to meet the minor child of the parties. Vide order dated 21.09.2013, the trial Court partly allowed the application filed by the respondent and visitation rights were granted to him in the manner that he will be entitled to meet the child on first three Sundays of every month. Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed appeal under Section 29 of the Act of 2005, but the same was dismissed by the appellate Court vide order dated 22.2.2014. A petition for grant of decree of divorce was also filed by the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the Family Court, Jaipur with the consent of the parties passed an order on 27.11.2013 regarding visitation right of the respondent to the effect that the petitioner will remain present along with the child at 'Bharat Centre Samaj' Jaipur on Second Saturday of every month between 1.00 p.m. to 3.00 p.m. and the respondent will be entitled to meet the child during that period. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order dated 22.2.2014, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this Criminal Misc. Petition.

3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties agreed that the following legal questions are involved in this petition for decision of Court:

(1) Whether the order dated 21.09.2013 passed by the trial Court as upheld and affirmed by the appellate Court is null and void being without jurisdiction as the trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 21 of the Act of 2005 and pass the order in view of the fact that the Family Court has already been established at Jaipur under the provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act of 1984)

(2) Whether the order dated 27.11.2013 passed by the Family Court has overriding effect and will prevail over on the order dated 21.09.2013 passed by the trial Court as Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction to pass such order.

4. Inviting attention towards Sections 7, 8 and 20 of the Act of 1984, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that exclusive jurisdiction has been conferred upon the Family Court established under the provisions of Act in respect of the suits and proceedings referred in the explanation to Section 7 of the Act including a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of a person or the custody of or access to any minor and as it is an admitted fact that Family Court was established at Jaipur well before the Act of 2005 came into force, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass an order regarding visitation rights in favour of the respondent under Section 21 of the Act of 2005 and even the application filed by the respondent was not maintainable. It was further submitted that the order dated 21.9.2013 as uphe