IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTH (8TH) DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.1196 of 2011 Between: Mrs. Jane Miranda Prabhu (died) & others … Petitioners And: Master Charles Prasanth …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.1196 of 2011 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the docket order dated 18.01.2011 in OP No.281 of 2010 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad, wherein the learned District Judge, held that the OP is maintainable. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed OP No.281 of 2010 against first petitioner, who is his paternal grand mother. On the death of the first petitioner, petitioners 2 to 5 were impleaded on the ground that the properties of late Bradney Mirinda Prabhu were in their hands. According to the respondent, who is minor, represented by his mother Benedicta Coelho, he was born during the wedlock between Benedicta Coelho and late Bradney Mirinda Prabhu. The petitioners herein disputed legitimacy of the respondent and contended that he was not born to the deceased Bradney Mirinda Prabhu. The petitioners also disputed the jurisdiction of the Court on the ground that the properties were situated out side the jurisdiction. The learned Judge, family Court held that the OP is maintainable and the question as to whether or not the respondent is entitled for maintenance will be considered along with other aspects after enquiry. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent in the OP filed the present revision. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Family Court will have jurisdiction to deal with any disputes only between the parties to the marriage and the remedy for the respondent herein to seek maintenance, if any is elsewhere, but not under the Family Court Act. 5. According to the respondent, he was born to Benedicta Coelho and late Bradney Mirinda Prabhu. The petitioners, who are brothers and sisters of Bradney Mirinda Prabhu are disputing the marriage between the Benedicta Coelho and late Bradney Mirinda Prabhu and also birth of the respondent to them. The truth or otherwise of the said question does not fall for any consideration in the present revision and the same has to be considered by the Family Court on evidence, that may be adduced during the enquiry. 6. The objects and reasons of the Family Courts Act would show that the Act was intended to provide for the establishment of Family Courts with a view to promote conciliation in, and secure speedy settlement of, disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for matters connected therewith. The maintenance proceedings initiated by the children against either of the parents certainly come within the fold of the marriage and family affairs and the matters connected therewith. Section 7 of the Act states that Family Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of the suit and proceedings of the nature referred to in the explanation. The explanation contains a list of various categories of the suit and proceedings. Clause (f) of the explanation refers to a suit or proceeding for maintenance. Thus under Section 7(1)(f) of the Act, the Family Court will have jurisdiction in respect of the suit or proceedings for maintenance. Though, some of the clauses in the explanation specifically making a reference to the suit or proceedings between the parties to a marriage, some other clauses including clause (f) do not specify that such suit or proceedings shall be between the parties to the marriage only. Thus, a suit or maintenance proceedings initiated by children against either of his parents is certainly maintainable before the Family Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the proceedings to be initiated before the Family Court shall invariably be between the parties to the marriage is untenable. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision in ‘K.A.Abdul Jaleel v. T.A.Shahida[1]’, wherein the apex Court held as follows: “The wording “disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for matters connected therewith” in the view of this Court must be given a broad construction. The Statement of objects and reasons clearly shows that the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends, inter alia, in relation to properties of spouses or of either of them which would clearly mean the properties claimed by the parties thereto as a spouse of the other; irrespective of the claim whether the property is claimed during the subsistence of a marriage or otherwise. To read the words “a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage” to mean “parties to a subsisting marriage”, would lead to miscarriage of justice. It is now a well-settled principle of law that the jurisdiction of a court created specially for resolution of disputes of certain kinds should be construed liberally. The restricted meaning if ascribed to Section 7 Explanation (c) of the Act, would frustrate the object where for the Family Courts were set up.” 8. In ‘R.Durga Prasad v. Union of India[2]’, the Division Bench of this Court held that ‘the words “….settlement of disputes relating to marriage…” takes in not only the matters of an admitted marriage, but also a dispute with regard to the very existence of the marriage as the existence or otherwise of a marriage is also a dispute relating to marriage.’ 9. In view of the clear language of Section 7(1)(f) conferring jurisdiction on the Family Court to deal with the suit or proceedings for maintenance, no restricted meaning can be attributed by confining the said provision only to suit or proceedings for maintenance by either of the spouses against other, who were parties to admitted or subsisting marriage. The Family Court is certainly having jurisdiction to deal with the claim of maintenance made by the respondent herein. The question as to whether or not he is entitled for maintenance is altogether a different matter to be considered by the Family Court on evidence. The impugned order holding that the OP is maintainable does not therefore call for any interference. 10. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 08.08.2011 bss [1] (2003) 4 SCC 166 [2] 1998(2) ALD 25 (DB)