TN 9’k HIGH COURT OF KARAThKA AT BArCJORE AIED THIS THE 1ST DAY CF APRIL 1998 BEFORE THE HCN’BLE MR.JUSTICE H,N.NARAYAN NO.857/l998 G .Heitavathi Shivashankar w/o .T - . Shivasha nkar aged 54 years Perma*wnt r/o. Sob ol Road Somavarpet 0 Kodagu Dist, Represented by her mother as Power of Attornel Holder mt D.R,Shanthamrna w/o. G.H, Guru aged about 75 yrs. r/o. School Road Somavarpet, Kodagu Dist, . Petitioner (By Srnt. Henalatla Malishi — Adv,) VS a 1. Dr. Tunkur S.Shiashankar aged 57 ytars r/o. No.303, 2nd street LX West. BarKsidale, A.F,B,L.A. 71110 U.S.A. 2. Thiput Nagara Usha d/o, Nagaraj aged 47 y’ rc r/o. same s giVal for 1st respondent. .. Resronderts (By Sr,B ‘1,Ch ndrac ekar & Sr C V,BasaVar a — AdV,) C R P. H ad u s 15 of rp og I at He ro°r dated 2c—2—1998 passed n 0,S,No,1960/C3 on the file of tie City iViI J oe, Ba a or oroer ng H post Lois case H near on 2ô5l99b T a C H.P. comir o for a mi son U s 4 ay, the Court made the followlno : RD ER 6 406 —2— ORDER This matter coming on for admission today, the respondent& counsel though served, renamed absent, Hence, it is taken up for final disposal; heard and disposed of by this order. 2. The petitioner—plaintiff has filed a suit in the Court of the City Civil Judge Court, Ban alore n the year 1983 for declaration of the status of the plaintiff as the wife of. respondent1—first defendant, The Court has concluded reenrtng the evidence, While the matter was posted for arguments, the learned counsel for the plaintiff filed a memo on iO—2—1998 bringing to the notice of the Court below that as per Section 7 and 8 of the Family Court Act, the said Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and requested the court to transfer it to the Family Court, Bangalore, The respondents have filed their objections and the trial Judge has posted the matter to 28—5—1998 to hear the said objections. The legality of the said order is questioned in this revision, ,, 3,, 3. The iearne.d counsel for the petitioner has contended that Under Section 7(i)(b) of the Family Court Act.. .984, a suit or proceedings for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or is to the matrimonial status of any person have to be exercised only by the Family Court and none other. Therefore, there is a clear exclusion of the Civil Court to try such matters. By operation of law, the suit should have been automatically transferred to the jurisdiction of the Family Court. The contention of the respondent before the trial Court was that the trial Court has recorded the evidence and therefore, the trial Court has to puss the judgments This is an unreasonable submission made by the respondents calling upon a Court which has no jurisdiction to pass a judgment and which if done would become a nullity. The learned Judge should have considered thia provision and pass the order im.ne.dIateiy as the parties are eager to take a decision from the competent court Revision is, therefore, allowed. Ahe trial Court is directed to transfer 4,, suit to the file of Family Court Banga lore forthwith. Sd/ JUDGE I rs,