The court emphasized the importance of framing issues that indicate application of mind and the plenary jurisdiction of Family Courts Act, 1984 to try all issues as provided under the Act.

ORDER :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

The judgment in Title (Maintenance) Suit No. 01 of 2009 has been challenged by the wife on various grounds including the findings rendered on issue No.4 framed in the said suit.

2. This First Appeal was admitted for hearing by an order dated 5th February 2018 and the lower Court records have been placed before us.

3. On 10th February 2022, the following order was passed by this Court:

“Order No.15/Dated: 10th February, 2022

On repeated calls, no one appears for the respondent. Today is 15th day of date of listing of this First Appeal for hearing.

By an order dated 12th September 2017 notice to the respondent was issued by the Court and after hearing the learned counsel for the respondent by an order dated 20th November 2017 delay of 145 days in filing the present First Appeal was condoned by the Court.

The proceedings in the present First Appeal disclosed that on 3rd February 2020, 5th November 2020 and 10th December 2020 no one appeared for the respondent.

By an order dated 10th December 2020, the learned counsels appearing for the parties were directed to file their written notes and compilation of judgments, if any. This order of the Court has not been complied with by the parties.

Since this First Appeal is listed for hearing before us for the first time, we are inclined to adjourn the matter for a short date.

Post this matter on 15th February 2022 under the heading “Final Disposal”.”

4. Mr. Akshay Kumar Mahato, the learned counsel for the respondent has joined the Court proceedings through virtual mode.

5. Title (Maintenance) Suit No. 01 of 2009 was instituted by the wife seeking the following reliefs: (i) maintenance of Rs. 8,000/-per month under section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act; (ii) an order of injunction against payment of settlement to the defendant Nos.2 and 3; (iii) attachment of post retiral dues payable to the husband and; (iv) return of Rs. 2,50,000/- which was value of her ornaments (stridhan).

6. At the outset, we may observe that the issues framed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Title (Maintenance) Suit No. 01 of 2009 do not indicate application of mind by the learned Court. We find that in paragraph No.10 of the judgment dated 2nd August 2016 the learned Family Court Judge has himself recorded that no issue was framed for return of stridhan. The learned Judge has further held that the said issue does not fall within the scope and ambit of section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, though no issue was framed in this regard.

7. The provisions under Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure indicate that issues arise when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and denied by the other. Rule 1(4) to Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that issues are of two kinds (i) issues of fact and (ii) issues of law. Rule 3 provides how the issues are framed on the basis of the materials placed before the Court. More significantly, under Rule 5 to Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure the Court may at any time before passing a decree amend the issues or frame additional issues on such terms as it thinks fit. By now, it is a well settled proposition that the powers under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code can be exercised by the Courts suo moto or on an application made by a party to the suit.

8. The Family Courts Act, 1984 provides that a Family Court shall have and exercise all the jurisdictions exercisable by any district Court or any subordinate Court under any law in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the Explanation to section 7. Therefore, a Family Court shall have plenary jurisdiction in terms of section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to try all issues as provided under the Act. This is fundamental in law and as would appear from the phraseology employed in section 7 of the Family Courts Act as well as section 9 of the Code of Civil