-Jl^, HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARN. BILASPW Writ Petition (Cl hto.4311 of 2008 PETITIONER/; (Plaintiff) RESPONDENT/: (Defendant) Anshul Pagariya, D/o Prakash Chand Pagariya, aged about 21 years Occupation Student, R/o D/41, Tagore Nagar, Sector-1, Raipur (C.G.) Vereus Gaurav Dev, S/o M.K. Dev, aged atoout 28 years, Occupation Service, R/o Saket Nagar, Quarter No.34/9-B, P.S. Bag Sevanika, Bhopal(M.P.) {Writ petition under Articte 226/227 of the Constitution of Irriia} Present: Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava wth Mr. Malay Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, counsel for the res(»nefent. Sinale Bench: Hon'bte Mr. T.P. Sharma. J ORALORDER (21-7-2010) 1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned dated 30-4-2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Civil Suit No.82A/2007, whereby learned Judlcial IVtagistrate First Class has returned the plaint for filing it before the approp-iate Court i.e. Famity Court. 2. I have also perused the copy of plaint filed on behalf of the p^itioner in which following reliefs have been ctaimed: - 1) wf^r ^ XIST ^ ^r rfNT^ ^ ^ss ws snw •E^ ^WIT ^t SRrf^T TH^T ^f -uTrt f^ "^rf^. V ^wS ^ 11SEI ^S^ PTTO WipT ^t 13CT afr; •Enf^ft ^m^ ^ Wra^ l^qriiw wft ^ 11 '2) af?icii4i STCT srtsr WT UTO Wsr •-Hl3fi)'*ff ^ti^ 28-07- 2ooe wr srte ? yi ^tifeT ftw ^i 3) 3pq ^ Sf^s ^f vm^l •'^WM ^RT W^ ^^ ^TrRTm^^rt^Trit^l 4) qif^-ft^r^RSEraafiCT^^f^OT^^i V Scma 3. The Court below has retumed the pfalnt for p-esenting it before the Family Court in accordance with clause (b) of sub^ectton (1)or Section 7 of the Famity Courts Act, 1984 (for short the Act') which r^ids thus, "7. Jurisdiction.—(1)Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall— (b)be deemed, for the purposes of exereising such jurisdiction under such law, to be a distrtct court or, as the case may be, such subordinate civil court for the area to which the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends." 4. The Family Court is competent to decide the matrimomal status of any person and for the aforesaid declaration juriscNction of civil court is excluded in accordance w'th Section 8 ofthe Act. The Court below has notcommitted any illegality in passing suchorder impugned for retum of plaint for presenting it before the appropriate Court. Consequently, the petitfon is liable to be dismissed and It is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. _——— Sd/- T.P Sharma Judge