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 provisions.

JUDGMENT :

SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.

1. Instructions placed today are taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Pramod Pathak, learned Advocate holding brief of Shri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Hari Narayan Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the connected matter, Shri Chandan Sharma and Shri Rahul Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the respondents respectively.

3. Writ Petition No. 37 of 2026, filed by the Civil Court Bar Association, Maharajganj, was filed with a prayer in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Administrative Order dated 08.12.2025 passed by respondent no. 3, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Maharajganj, and the recommendation order dated 08.12.2025 of respondent no. 2, District Judge Mahrajganj, by which the cases were transferred to village court Nautanva and Nichlaul, District Mahrajganj.

4. Connected Writ Petition No. 42218 of 2025 was filed by the Bar Association, Civil Court, Gorakhpur, with the prayer to issue direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the administrative order no. 162/2025/Gorakhpur/Dated/Sept, 23, 2025, passed by the office of the District Judge Gorakhpur and also for quashing the administrative order dated 07.10.2025 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court.

5. Since both writ petitions challenge similar administrative orders directing transfer of maintenance proceedings from Family Courts to Gram Nyayalayas, they were heard together with the consent of the parties and are being decided by this common judgment. For the sake of clarity, however, the factual matrix of each petition is noticed separately wherever required.

6. The material facts in both petitions are not in dispute. It is a matter of fact that the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008, was enacted with the legislative object for providing access to justice at the grassroot level. Section 12(1)(b), read with the First Schedule Part II, point (v) to the Act, enable Gram Nyayalayas to entertain claims of maintenance arising under the Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter IX (Section 125 to 128) and Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita chapter X (Section 144 to 147). It is also clear that Section 16 of the Act empowers the District Judge to order transfer of pending proceedings, and that Section 18 provides an overriding provision in respect of criminal matters. At the same time, the Family Courts Act, 1984, provides for a special forum for adjudication of family disputes. Under Section 7, the Family Court exercise jurisdiction akin to that of a Magistrate of the First Class under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, while Section 8 expressly exclude the jurisdiction of other courts in respect of matters falling within its scope. A notable and undisputed distinction between the two enactments lies in the appellate framework, whereas Section 19 of the Family Courts Act provides for an appeal directly to the High Court, Section 33 of the Gram Nyayalayas Act contemplates an appeal to the Court of Session, whose decision attains finality subject to constitutional remedies.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners have vehemently contended that the impugned administrative orders are wholly arbitrary, ultra vires and contrary to the legislative intent underlying both enactments. It was argued that the Family Courts Act is a special Statute creating an exclusive forum for family disputes and, therefore, jurisdiction once vested in such court could not be divested by administrative directions. Emphasi