SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 8600

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, Sachin Singh Rajput, JJ
Priti Shrivastava – Appellant
Versus
Vinay Kumar Shrivastava – Respondent
FA(MAT) No. 314 of 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Tarendra Kumar Jha
For the Respondents: Chandresh Shrivastava, Manoj Paranjpe, Kabeer Kalwani, Rahul Tamaskar

The National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999, being a special legislation, excludes the jurisdiction of Family Courts regarding the appointment of guardians for persons with disabilities, which is exclusively vested in the Local Level Committees under the Act.

Headnote:(A) National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 - Section 14(1) - Family Courts Act, 1984 - Section 7(1) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIIA Rule 1(2)(c) - Guardianship of person with disability - Jurisdiction - Whether Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain application for appointment of guardian to persons with disability - Held, the Act of 1999 is a special legislation for the welfare of persons with disabilities and creates a specific mechanism - Special law prevails over general provisions of CPC - Consequently, Family Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain said application under Section 14(1) of 1999 Act.

(B) Legal Maxims - Generalia specialibus non derogant and Lex posterior derogate priori - Application where conflict arises between special statute (1999 Act) and general statute (CPC) - Court held special Act overrides general provisions.

Facts of the case:
Appellant filed an application before Family Court seeking appointment of guardian for a person with disability under Section 14(1) of the 1999 Act. The Family Court rejected the application citing lack of jurisdiction under Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, stating that the Local Level Committee under the 1999 Act is the appropriate authority.

Findings of Court:
The Court held the 1999 Act is a self-contained code for the welfare of persons with disabilities. The jurisdiction of the Family Court is restricted to matters of minor guardianship as per Explanation (g) of Section 7(1) of the 1984 Act and does not extend to the guardianship of persons with disabilities.

Issues: Whether the Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 14(1) of the 1999 Act for the appointment of a guardian to a person with disability.

Ratio Decidendi: The Act of 1999, being a special Act, operates to the exclusion of general laws. The jurisdiction for appointing guardians for persons with disabilities is exclusively vested in the Local Level Committee constituted under the 1999 Act.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. jurisdiction dispute regarding guardianship for disabled persons. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. contention over applicability of special versus general law. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. special laws regarding welfare override general civil procedure code provisions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
4. appellants directed to approach the competent local committee. (Para 28 , 29 , 30)

AFR

{FA(MAT) No.314/2023}

{Arising out of order dated 31-10-2023 in Civil MJC No.7/2022 of the Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh/Camp Baikunthpur, District Koria}

Judgment reserved on: 24-3-2026

Judgment delivered on: 15-4-2026

Judgment (Full) uploaded on: 15-4-2026

C.A.V. Judgment

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

For sake of exposition, this Order is divided in following parts:-

S.No. Particulars Page Nos.
1. Challenge in the Appeal 2
2. Question of Law Involved 3
3. Quintessential Facts 3
4. Submission of the Appellants 4
5. Submission of the Respondent 5
6. Submissions of the Amicus 6
7. Legislative History qua Law of Guardianship 7
8. The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 7
9. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 8
10. The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 9
11. The Family Courts Act, 1984 10
12. The National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 12
13. Prior General law and Later Particular law 14
14. Generalia specialibus non derogant 15
15. Lex posterior derogate priori 18
15. Discussion and Analysis 19
16. Conclusion 20

Challenge in the Appeal

1. The appellants herein seek to challenge the impugned order dated 31-10-2023 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Manendragarh/ Camp Court Baikunthpur, District Koria in Civil MJC No.7/2022, by which their application filed under Section 14(1) of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 (for short, 'the Act of 1999'), has been rejected holding that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application for appointment of guardian to the person with disability i.e. appellant No.1 herein.

Question of Law Involved

2. The short question of law that is involved in the appeal is, whether for the custody/guardianship of a person with disability, the Family Court would have the jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 7 (1) read with Explanation (g) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short, 'the Act of 1984') or application would lie before the appropriate Committee under Section 14(1) of the Act of 1999?

Quintessential Facts

3. Marriage between appellant No.2 herein and the respondent herein was solemnized on 15-12-2012. Appellant No.1 herein is a person with disability. She is the biological daughter of the respondent herein and appellant No.2 herein is her stepmother. Appellant No.1 is major and she is the person with disability within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Act of 1999, as she is suffering from mental retardation. Pursuant to the matrimonial discard between appellant No.2 and the respondent, appellant No.2 got herself transferred from Raipur to Baikunthpur and started living with her mother and sister. It is the case of appellant No.2 that on 28-10-2022/29-10-2022, the respondent came to her house at Baikunthpur and started quarrelling with her mother and sister and unsuccessfully attempted to take appellant No.1 with him, but with the police intervention, it could not be done by the respondent herein leading to fling of application for guardianship before the Family Court, Manendragarh, District Koria to appoint appellant No.2 as guardian of appellant No.1 under Section 14(1) of the Act of 1999 in which the respondent filed application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application and the appropriate Committee constituted under Section 14(1) of the Act of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top