Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri K.P. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.

No one appears for respondent No. 2 despite order dated 11.3.2014 holding service of notice upon her to be sufficient.

Petitioner applied under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (in short ‘Act’) for the custody of his three minor children.

The family Court before whom the petition was filed vide order dated 1.4.2013 has directed for the return the plaint to the Civil Court holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Section 25 of the Act.

2. In challenging the above order the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the family Court has mis-read the provisions of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 which clearly provides that the family Court shall have the jurisdiction apart from other things inter alia in respect of proceedings in relation to guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor.

3. It would be material to refer Section 7 of the Family Court Act, 1984 in resolving the issue of jurisdiction of the family Court to entertain a petition under Section 25 of the Act for the custody of minors. It reads as under :

“7. Jurisdiction.—(1) subject to the other provisions of this Act, the family Court shall—

(a) have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any district Court or any subordinate Civil Court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the Explanation; and

(b)————————————

—————————————

Explanation.———The suits and proceedings referred to in this sub-section are suits and proceedings of the following nature,namely:———

(a)————————————————

(b)————————————————

—————————————————

(g) a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor.”

(2)————————————————

A plain reading of the above provision establishes that the family Court under Section 7 of the Act has jurisdiction to decide suits and proceedings in relation to the guardianship of the person or of a custody of any minor.

4. The proceedings under Section 25 of the Act are in connection with the custody of a minor/ward ie. either of his removal from the custody of the guardian or restoration of custody to the guardian. They are as such in the nature of custody of a minor.

In view of the above, it is apparent that the proceedings under Section 25 of the Act for the custody of the minor children would lie before the Family Court wherever it is so established and the Family Court shall exercise all powers of a district Court or any sub-ordinate Civil Court in respect thereof.

5. The above view of mine find support from the decision of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Vimalashram Gharkul of Amprapali Utkarsha Sangh v. Jyoti Banson Joseph, 2006 (4) Mh LJ 692, which lays down that the proceedings in relation to the guardianship of a person or custody of a minor are required to be instituted in the Family Court in view of Section 7 of the Act.

6. In the instant case the Court below has directed for return of the plaint for presentation to the Civil Court by incomplete reading of the provisions of Section 7 of the Act. It failed to take into account clause (g) of Section 7 of the Act which specifically provides for jurisdiction of the family Court in respect of the matters relating to guardianship and custody of minor.

7. The Family Court in directing for return of the plaint had relied upon certain decisions.

8. One of the cases relied upon by the Court below is P. Madhavan Nair and others v. K. Ravindran Unni, AIR 1993 Kant 203. In the said case the dispute was with regard to change of custody of a minor which was entrusted to the husband under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in proceeding for divorce by mutual consent. The Division Bench of the High Court in view of the fact that the said order was passed by the Civil Court opined that the change