The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 8(b) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, to determine the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in a maintenance petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records pertaining to the complaint made in C.C. No.2165 of 2013 on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore at Allikulam, Chennai 600 003 and quash the same.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their name.

3. Karpagam got married to Ponram on 02.02.2006 and they have one child Savitha through the wedlock. The couple got estranged, pursuant to which, Ponram filed a petition for divorce in F.C.O.P. No.1506 of 2008 before the Principal Family Court, Chennai, against Karpagam. Karpagam filed C.C. No.2165 of 2013 before the V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against Ponram, claiming maintenance for herself and her child Savitha. Under such circumstances, Ponraj is before this Court for transferring C.C. No.2165 of 2013 from the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, to the file of the Principal Family Court, Chennai.

4. Notice was ordered to Karpagam and she has entered appearance through her advocate Mr. P. Rajkumar Pandian.

5. Mr. Rajkumar Pandian, learned counsel for Karpagam submitted that F.C.O.P. No.1506 of 2008 that was filed by Ponram for divorce before the Principal Family Court, Chennai, was dismissed as early as on 18.12.2012 and that ex parte orders have been passed in C.C. No.2165 of 2013 by the V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai on 11.12.2013 directing Ponram to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance for Karpagam and her child Savitha. Since Ponram did not make payments, an execution petition has also been filed for the enforcement of the order under Section 128 Cr.P.C. and at that stage, the prayer of Ponram for transfer of C.C. No.2165 of 2013 from the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, to the file of the Principal Family Court, Chennai, is untenable.

6. Mr. T. Subramanian, learned counsel for Ponram placed reliance upon Section 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which reads thus:

8. Exclusion of jurisdiction and pending proceedings:

Where a Family Court has been established for any area,--

(a) no district Court or any subordinate Civil Court referred to in sub-section (1) of section 7 shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of any suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the Explanation to that sub-section.;

(b) no Magistrate shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction or powers under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974);

(c) every suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 7 and every proceeding under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)--

(i) which is pending immediately before the establishment of such Family Court before any district Court or subordinate Court referred to in that sub-section or, as the case may be, before any Magistrate under the said Code; and

(ii) which would have been required to be instituted or taken before or by such Family Court if, before the date on which such suit or proceeding was instituted or taken, this Act had come into force and such Family Court had been established, shall stand transferred to such Family Court on the date on which it is established.

7. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid provision, the learned counsel for Ponram submitted that the Family Courts Act came into force way back in 1984 and Family Courts were constituted in Tamil Nadu as early as 1990 and therefore, the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was not maintainable before the V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, in the light of Section 8(b) of the Family Courts Act, extracted above.

8. There is considerable force in the argument of Mr.T.Subramanian, learned counsel for Ponram. It is indeed surprising as to how the petition has been numbered before the V Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore and orders passed unmindful of and g