Back
2005(2) JLJ 249
(FULL BENCH)
S.S. Jha, A.K. Gohil and Subhash Samvatsar, JJ.
Rajesh Shukla v. Smt. Meena and another
Civil Revision No. 145 of 2004; against the order of Smt. Prabha Khare, Family Court Judge, Gwalior, passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 661 of 2002, on reference; Decided on 8.4.2005.
This revision is sent on reference to this Bench on the following question of law :
"Whether against the order passed by the Family Court in an application under section 125 of the Code while exercising jurisdiction under Chapter IX of the Code, revision under sub-section (4) of section 19 of the Act should be registered as civil revision or criminal revision or revision petition (family) ?" [Para 1
Held: Since powers of Judicial Magistrate First Class have been exercised by the Family Court for deciding application under section 125 of the Code, revision filed against the said order should be registered as criminal revision. Therefore, with respect to the judgment in the case of Aruna Choudhary [2004(2) MPLJ 101] we hold that correct law has not been laid down in this judgment. Revision arising out of applications under section 125 of the Code shall be registered as criminal revisions as they flow from the proceedings under the Code. 2004(2) MPLJ 101 overruled. AIR 1986 SC 984, AIR 1965 SC 1818,2004(1) MPWN 16(SC) and AIR 1953 SC 357 followed. AIR 1987 Ker. 11 (FB) dissented from. 1998(1) Crimes 143(FB) and AIR 1938 Born. 225 (FB) relied on. [Para 17
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973-- Ss. 125, 397 and 401 -- Family Court passing orders of maintenance -- exercises powers of Judicial Magistrate First Class -- its order is revisable in terms of Ss. 397 and 401 before the High Court. AIR 1965 SC 1818 fol1owed. [Para 8
(3) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Chap. IX -- provision for awarding maintenance -- provides quick remedy to protect against starvation. AIR 1986 SC 984 followed. [Para 6
(4) Criminal P.C., 1973--Chap. IX, Ss. 362, 125, 126, 127 and 128 -- maintenance -- Chap. IX provide its own procedure unlike S. 362 -- power to alter or modify maintenance order is there in S. 127-- ex parte order can be set aside under S. 126 -- order can be enforced under S. 128. [Para 10
(5) Family Courts Act, 1984 -- object of enactment -- is to promote conciliation -- to secure speedy settlement of disputes relating to marriage etc. 2004(1) MPWN 16 (SC) followed. [Para 13
(6) Practice --procedure existing in the High Court Rules -- should be followed. AIR 1953 SC 357 followed. [Para 14
¼1½ dqVqac U;k;ky; vf/kfu;e] 1984& &/kkjk 19¼4½ rFkk 7¼2½ ¼d½&naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973& &v/;k; 9 rFkk /kkjk 125& &dqVqac U;k;ky;&naM çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 125 ds v/khu Hkj.kiks"k.k dk vkns‘k ikfjr djrs le;&Ukf;d eftLVªsV çFke Js.kh dh ‘kfDr ç;qDr djrk gS&vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 19¼4½ ds v/khu ,sls vkns‘k dk iqujh{k.k nkafMd iqujh{k.k ds :i esa jftLVªhÑr gksuk pkfg,A funsZ‘k ij ;g iqujh{k.k fof/k ds fuEufyf[kr ç‘u ij bl U;k;ihB dks Hkstk x;k gS% ^^lafgrk ds v/;k; 9 ds v/khu vf/kdkfjrk ç;qDr djrs gq, lafgrk dh /kkjk 125 ds v/khu vkosnu esa dqVqac U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns‘k ds fo#) vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 19 dh mi/kkjk ¼4½ ds v/khu iqujh{k.k flfoy iqujh{k.k ds :i esa jftLVªhÑr gksuk pkfg, ;k nkafMd iqujh{k.k ds :i esa ;k iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk ¼dqVqac½ ds :i esa\** ¼iSjk 1½ vfHkfu/kkZfjr % D;ksafd lafgrk dh /kkjk 125 ds v/khu vkosnu ds fofu‘p;u ds fy, dqVqac U;k;ky; }kjk U;kf;d eftLVªsV çFke Js.kh dh ‘kfDr;k¡ ç;qDr dh xbZ gS] mDr vkns‘k ds fo#) Qkby fd;k x;k iqujh{k.k nkafMd iqujh{k.k ds :i esa jftLVªhÑr gksuk pkfg,A vr% v#.kk pkS/kjh ¿2004 ¼2½,e ih ,y ts 101À ds ekeys esa fn, x, fu.kZ; ds ckjs esa ge vfHkfu/kkZfjr djrs gSa fd bl fu.kZ; esa lgh fof/k vf/kdfFkr ugha dh xbZ gSA lafgrk dh /kkjk 125 ds v/khu vkosnuksa ls mn~Hkwr iqujh{k.k% nkafMd iqujh{k.k ds :i esa jftLVªhÑr gksaxs D;ksafd og lafgrk ds v/khu dk;Zokgh ls mn~Hkwr gksrs gSaA 2004¼2½ ,e ih ,y ts 101 myVk x;kA , vkb vkj 1986 ,l lh 984] , vkb vkj 1965 ,l lh 1818] 2004¼1½ e-ç- ohDyh uksV~l 16 ¼mPpre U;k-½ rFkk , vkb vkj 1953 ,l lh 357 vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 1987 dsjy 11¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ folEerA 1998¼1½ ØkbEl 143 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ rFkk , vkb vkj 1938 cacbZ 225 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¼iSjk 17½ ¼2½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973& &/kkjk 125] 397 rFkk 401& &Hkj.kiks"k.k dk vkns‘k ikfjr djus okyk dqVqac U;k;ky;&Ukf;d eftLVªsV çFke Js.kh dh ‘kfDr;k¡ ç;qDr djrk gS&mldk vkns‘k mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k /kkjk 397 rFkk 401 ds fuca/kukuqlkj iqujh{k.kh; gSA , vkb vkj 1965 ,l lh 1818 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 8½ ¼3½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973& &v/;k; 9&Hkj.kiks"k.k çnku djus ds fy, mica/k&Hkq[kejh ls j{kk ds fy, rkRdkfyd mipkj micaf/kr djrk gSA , vkb vkj 1986 ,l lh 984 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 6½ ¼4½ naM çfØ;k lafgrk] 1973& &v/;k; 9] /kkjk 362] 125] 126] 127 rFkk 128&Hkj.kiks"k.k&/kkjk 362 ls fHkUu] v/;k; 9 esa viuh Lo;a dh çfØ;k micaf/kr gSa&/kkjk 127 esa Hkj.kiks"k.k vkns‘k ifjofrZr ;k mikarfjr djus dh ‘kfDr gS&/kkjk 126 esa ,di{kh; vkns‘k vikLr fd;k tk ldrk gS&/kkjk 128 ds v/khu vkns‘k çofrZr fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼iSjk 10½ ¼5½ dqVqac U;k;ky; vf/kfu;e] 1984& &vf/kfu;fefr dk mn~ns‘;&lqyg dks c<+kok nsuk gS& fookg vkfn ls lacaf/kr fooknksa dk ‘kh?kz lek/kku lqfuf‘pr djuk gSA 2004¼1½ e-ç- ohDyh uksV~l 16 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 13½ ¼6½ çFkk&mPp U;k;ky; fu;eksa esa çfØ;k fo|eku&vuqlj.k fd;k tkuk pkfg,A , vkb vkj 1953 ,l lh 357 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 14½
Jha, J.--1. This revision is sent on reference to this Bench on the following question of law:
"Whether against the order passed by the Family Court in an application under section 125 of the Code while exercising jurisdiction under Chapter IX of the Code, revision under sub-section (4) of section 19 of the Act should be registered as civil revision or criminal revision or revision petition (family) ?"
2. This Bench is required to consider the correctness of the judgment delivered in the case of Aruna Chaudhary v. Sudhakar Chaudhary [2004(2) MPLJ 101]. Question involved is whether revision filed before this Court against the order passed under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Family Court shall be registered as Civil Revision or Criminal Revision. In the case of Aruna Chaudhary (supra). Division Bench of this Court held that civil revision will lie against the said order.
3. To examine the controversy, it will be useful to refer to section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter, referred to as the "Act"). Section 7 of the Act is reproduced below:
"7. Jurisdiction -- (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a 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) be deemed, for the purposes of exercising such jurisdiction under such law, to be a district Court, or, as the case may be, such subordinate civil Court for the area to which the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends.
Explanation--The suits and proceedings referred to in this sub-sections are suits and proceedings of the following nature, namely -
(a) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage for a decree of nullity of marriage (declaring the marriage to be null and void or, as the case may be, annulling the marriage) or restitution of conjugal rights, or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage;
(b) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person;
(c) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them;
(d) a suit or proceeding for an order or injunction in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship;
(e) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to legitimacy of any person;
(f) a suit or proceeding for maintenance;
(g) a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor.
(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall also have and exercise -(a) the jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of the First Class under Chapter IX (relating to order for maintenance of wife, children and parents) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); and (b) such other jurisdiction as may be conferred on it by any other enactment.'
4. From bare perusal of sub-section (2) of section 7 of the Act, it is apparent that jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate First Class under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) relates to maintenance of wife, children and parents. Thus, under sub-section (2) of section 7, the Family Court exercises the jurisdiction of Magistrate First Class under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter, referred to as the "Code"). Section 8 relates to exclusion of jurisdiction and pending proceedings. Under clause (b) of section 8 no Magistrate, shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction or power under Chapter IX of the Code. So powers of a Magistrate under Chapter IX of the Code can be exercised at a place where Family Court is established by the Family Court only and not by other Judicial Magistrate of the district. Section 10 of the Act provides for the procedure. Sub-section (2) of section 10 provides that subject to t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
