^J ^- <? 9- HIQH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shri Diiio Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. Apoellants DeTendants Resoondents Plaintiffs First Aopeal No.31 of 2( 1. Bihari, S/o Shivram Agrawal 2. Pawan, S/o Bihari Agrawal 3. Vishnu, S/o Bihari Agrawal 4. Pramod, S/o Bihari Agrawal All are resident of Village Kesla, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) versus 1. Amrika Bai, Wd/o Rajesh Agrawal 2. Avinash, S/o Rajesh Agrawal, aged about 4 years, minor through natural guardian mother Amrika Bai 3. Radhika, D/o Rajesh Agrawai, aged about 1 % years, minor through naturai guardian mother Amrika Bai All are R/o Viilage Bilha, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) First Appeal uhder Section 96 of the Code of Civi! Procedure Present : ShriMalayKumarBhaduri.counselfortheappeltants. Shri Samir Singh, counset forthe respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on26 day of March, 2008) Heard on I.A.No.2, an application.for taking document on record. I.A.No.2 is a!lowed and the document is taken on record. (2) Heard on admission. (3) Shri Matay Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/defendants has raised a preliminary objection that in view of the constitution of Family Court vide notification F.No.1507/D-397/21- B/C.G./05 dated 24-02-2005 with effect from 28-03-2005 for Bilasput District, all pending proceedings stood transferred automatica!!y to the Family Court so constituted and, therefore, the Court of Vtllth Additional District Judge, F.T.C., Bilaspur had no jurisdiction to try Miscellaneous Case No.38/2005 for grant of maintenance under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. (4) Shri Samir Singh, tearned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffe does not dispute that in view of Section 8 of the Family Courts Act and the constitution of Family Court for Bilaspur District, the Court of Vlllth Additiona! District Judge, F.T.C., Bilaspur had no jurisdiction to decide the application for maintenance under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. The only point urged by the learned counsel for the respondents/ptaintiffs is that objection as to jurisdiction was not taken by the appellants before the Vlllth Additional District Judge, F.T.C., Bilaspur. (5) Having heard rivat submissions, 1 have perused the impugned order dated 02-02-2007. Under Section 7 of the Famiiy Courts Act, a Family Court shatl have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisabte by any District Court or any Subordinate Civil Court under any law for the time being in force in respect pf suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the Explanation to ?ub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. Under clause (f) of the Explanation, a suit or proceeding for maintenance under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance ^ct falts within the purview of a suit and proceeding referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. Vide notification F.N0.1507/D-397/21-B/C.G./05 dated 24- 02-2005, the Famity Gourt for Bilaspur District was constituted with effect from 28-03-2005. Section 8 of the Family Courts Act is as under: "8. Exclusion of jurisdiction and pending proceedings. - Where a Fami!y Court has been established for any area, - (a) no district court or any subordinate civil court referred to in sub-section (1) ofsection 7 shatl, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of any suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the Explanaison to that sub-section; (b) no magistrate shail, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction or power under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminat Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); (c) every suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 7 and every proceeding under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), - (i) which is pending immediately before the estabtishment of such Family Court before any district court or subordinate court referred to in that sub-section or, as the case may be, before any magistrate under the said Code; and (ii) which .would have been required to be instituted or taken before or by such Family Court if, before the date on which such suit or proceeding was institutsd or taken, this Act had come into force and such Family Court had been established, shatl stand transferred to such Family Court on the date on which it is estabtished." - 1 r (6) In view of the provision contained in Section 8 of the Family Courts Act, ali proceedings for maintenance pending immediately before the establishment of Family Court before any District Judge stood transferred to the Family Court on the date on which it is established. In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Vlllth Additional District Judge, F.T.C., Bilaspur being without jurisdictfon is in nullity. The mere fact that objection as to jurisdiction was not taken before the Vtltth Additional District Judge, F.T.C., Bilaspur would be of np avail since in view of Section 8 of the Family Courts Act, the Vltlth Additiona! District Judge, F.T.C., Bilaspur ceased to have any jurisdiction over the subject matter upon constitutton of the Family Court. The argument advanced by learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plainttffs does not have any force and, therefore, is liabte to rejection. (7) The appeal is altowed. The impugned order is set aside. The record of Miscellaneous Case No.38/2005 be transmitted forthwith to the Principal Judge, Family Coun, Bilaspur for disposal in accordance with law. I.A.No.1, an application for stay, stands disposed of. Sd7- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Gopal B '^fc-iii