The Family Courts Act does not infringe on the High Court's matrimonial jurisdiction established under the Letters Patent, and any transfer of cases depends on explicit legislative provisions.

1. These are Matrimonial Petitions and Suits which involve a common question of law, namely, whether these matters stand transferred or should be transferred to the Family Court, Bombay established the Family Courts Act, 1984 (Act No. LXVI of 1984). The Family Court was established in the City of Bombay as from 7th October 1989, and the Act has been brought into force for the purpose of the said court as from that day. Since the question involved is likely to arise in several other Matrimonial Suits or Petitions pending in this court, I thought it convenient to request the counsel appearing in all these matters to address me, in the first instance, on this question, without going into the merits of each case which will be done separately.
The question that arises for consideration may be formulated thus: -
Whether the matrimonial jurisdiction exercisable by this Court (High Court) on its Original Side is not affected by S.7 of the , and whether consequently the matrimonial matters pending in this Court on or after 7-10-1989 do not stand transferred to the Family Court?

2. For the sake of convenience, I will refer to the Counsel who support the line of argument that the jurisdiction of this Court is not affected and no matters are required to be transferred to the Family Court, as counsel who support the proposition, and those counsel who adopt the line of argument that the Family Court is now clothed with exclusive jurisdiction to entertain matters of the aforesaid category and all pending proceedings should be transferred to that Court, as, counsel opposing the proposition.

3. Mr. Rafiq Dada led the argument in support of the proposition, Mr. J. I. Mehta, Mr. D. V. Merchant, Mr. Karim and Miss. Anusuya Dutt, Advocates, joined him by adding few more points.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Palan argued in support of the other view. Mr. P. L. Nain and Mr. N. M. Shah supplemented his arguments.

5. In order to be able to appreciate the nature of the controversy, it is necessary to set out at the outset the relevant provisions of the Family Courts Act :
Sub-sec. (d) of S.2 defines the "Family Court" to mean:
'a Family Court established under. S. 3';
S.3 of the Act reads as follows : -
"3(1). Establishment of Family Courts. - For the purpose of exercising the jurisdsation and powers conferred on a Family Court by this Act, the State Government, after consultation with the High Court, and by notification -
(a) shall, as soon as may be after the commencement of this Act, establish for every area in the State comprising a city or town whose population exceeds one million, a Family Court;
(b) may establish Family Courts for such other areas in the State as it may deem necessary.
(2) The State Government shall, after consultation with the High Court, specify, by notification, the local limits of the area to which the jurisdiction of a Family Court shall extend and may, at any time, increase reduce or alter such limits."
Sub-section (e) of S.2 lays down that -
"all other words and expressions and but not defined in this Act and defined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Code."

6. Chapter III of the Act deals with jurisdiction.

7. It is necessary to set out S.7 and S.8 of the Act which read as follows : -
centre JURISDICTION
"7(l). Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall -
(a) have