IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1530 of 2007 SURAJ BHAGAT ..PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SUNITA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE SHIVJEE BHAGAT For the petitioner: Mr. Tara Sinha For o.p.no.2 :Mr.Ramchandra Singh & : Mr.Jitendra kr. Singh For the State : Mr.J. Upadhyay,APP ----------- 04. 08.09.2010 Heard. Petitioner is the father-in-law. O.P.No.2 is the widow daughter-in-law. By order impugned, Misc. Case No.57/2007 filed by O.P.No.2 seeking maintenance for herself and for her minor daughter has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- to O.P.No.2 and Rs.200 to her minor daughter(in all Rs.1200/-) per month from the date of order. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the order on the ground that section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(hereinafter referred to as the „Code‟) does not permit any such claim by the daughter-in-law against the father-in-law. It is thus contended that the order is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 submits that in view of the provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984, such an application was maintainable before the learned Family Court. He places reliance on different provisions contained in the Family Courts Act (hereinafter 2 referred to as the‟ Act‟). He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shabana Bano vs. Imran Khan since reported in (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 666 (paragraph 15). I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the materials on records. It is apposite to deal with the objections raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. The Family Courts Act 1984 was introduced enabling the Government to set up court(s) and vest in it the jurisdiction with regard to disputes of diverse nature. Section 7 of the Act deals with the jurisdiction of the Court. Section 8 of the Act contains the provisions relating to exclusion of jurisdiction and pending proceedings. Section 10 provides the procedures which is/are to be adopted generally while deciding the disputes. Section 20 of the Act reads as under: “20. Act to have overriding effect.- The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.” Section 7(f) deals with the matter relating to maintenance. A bare perusal of section 8 would show that all such pending matters which is/are covered by the Act shall stand transferred to the Family Court. Section 20 provides overriding effect of the provisions of the Act. If the provisions are read conjointly then it would become more than apparent that the 3 Family Court has the jurisdiction to deal with the matters relating to maintenance which is provided under section 19 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act 1956. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Shabana Bano(Supra) has considered the scope of section 20 and has found as under in paragraph 15: “Section 20 of the Family Act appearing in Chapter VI deals with overriding effect of the provisions of the Act. The said section reads as under: “20. Act to have overriding effect.- The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.” A bare perusal of Section 20 of the Family Act makes it crystal clear that the provisions of this Act shall have overriding effect on all other enactments in force dealing with this issue.” In that view of the matter, the contention of the petitioner is found to be wholly erroneous and is rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner then contends that the petitioner is ready and willing to keep and allow o.p.no.2 to stay in the matrimonial home and to maintain her. The findings are otherwise. Learned trial court has found that a criminal proceeding was filed by o.p.no.2 against the father-in- law and others. It has also been found by learned trial court that the petitioner was having a lewd eye on her and she was completely insecure in the house of the petitioner. These are the findings on appreciation of evidence which cannot be interfered 4 with, particularly when the same have not been shown to be perverse. There is no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )