J U D G M E N T

Sophy Thomas, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the respondent in O.P (G&W) No.1139 of 2017, challenging the proceedings of the Additional District Judge-VI, Ernakulam dated 22.11.2021.

2. O.P (G&W) No.1139 of 2017 was filed by Smt.Sandhya, mother of minor girl Nivedya, against the respondent, who is the father of the minor and husband of the petitioner. Due to strained marital relationship, the petitioner and respondent were living separately and the minor child was staying with her mother. Plaint schedule property was owned by the maternal grandmother of the minor child, and it was settled in her favour as per settlement deed No.1766/2012 of SRO, Tripunithura. The petitioner-wife filed that O.P for declaring her as the guardian of the person and property of the minor Nivedya.

3. The respondent-husband challenged the jurisdiction of the Family Court in entertaining that petition. He contended that the District Court is not having jurisdiction, as the entire right of the District Court, by virtue of the Guardian & Wards Act, has been taken over by the Family Court as per Section 7 (1) explanation (g)

of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

4. The District Court, after hearing the rival contentions raised by the parties, found that, when custody of the property of a minor is involved, the jurisdiction is with the District Court and so, that court has jurisdiction to entertain that O.P. In this appeal, the respondent-husband is challenging that finding.

5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent.

6. The question to be considered here is, whether the District Court is having jurisdiction to entertain a petition for appointment of guardian for the person and property of a minor.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that, matrimonial relationship between the appellant and the respondent was dissolved on mutual consent on 31.12.2015. Even prior to that, his mother executed a settlement deed in favour of his minor child on 21.05.2012, reserving life interest for the appellant in the property and the house situated therein. The respondent-wife filed O.P (G&W) No.1139 of 2017 before the Additional District Court- VI, Ernakulam, for appointing her as the guardian of the person and property of the minor child. According to the appellant, Section 7(1) explanation (g) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 takes away the jurisdiction of the District Court, and so, the O.P is not maintainable before that court. Moreover he has filed OP No.931 of 2019 before the Family Court, Muvattupuzha, for getting custody of the minor child and it is still pending.

8. Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, lays down that a family Court shall have, and exercise all 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 which, inter alia, includes, according to clause (g), a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor. Section 8 of the Family Courts Act, specifically says that where a family Court has been established for any area, no District Court or any subordinate civil Court referred to, shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of such suits or proceedings referred to, in the Explanation which includes clause (g). (relied on Abraham G Karimpanal and others vs. Nil – AIR

2004 Kar.321).

9. So, there is no doubt with regard to the fact that, in a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor, the jurisdiction of the District Court is taken away by the Family Courts Act as per Section 7(1) explanation (g) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. But, when the question involved relates to appointment of guardian in respect of the property of minor, the Family Court has no jurisdiction, as that dispute is not coming under explanation (g