Only Family Court Has Power To Consider Proceeding Regarding Guardianship Of Person Or Custody Of Minor: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court has held that only the Family Court has the power to consider the suit or proceeding relating to the guardianship of a person or custody of any minor.
A Single Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh said, “Having considered Section 8 as well as explanation to Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, Section 7(g) is very clear that a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor, the Family Court is having the power to consider the same. … When the Family Courts Act is very clear with regard to the jurisdiction is concerned under Section 7 and when Section 7(g) is very clear with regard to a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor and when the Family Court is established to deal with all these issues involved between the parties, the Trial Court has not considered the same and only considered Section 9 of the Act and comes to the conclusion that the Court is having the power.”
The Bench further noted that Section 8 of the Family Courts Act is very clear with regard to the exclusion of jurisdiction and pending proceedings where a Family Court has been established for any area.
Advocate Sathisha D.J. appeared for the petitioners while Advocate Vikaykumar B. appeared for the respondents.
Brief Facts -
A revision petition was filed questioning the order passed by the Trial Court. The respondents prayed before the Court to dismiss the plea of the petitioners for want of jurisdiction as the petitioners were not residing within the jurisdiction of the Court and the cause of action also did not arise within the same.
The petitioners contended that the District Court has got jurisdiction under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The Trial Court concluded in its decision that the Court was having jurisdiction to entertain the plea, aggrieved by which, the petitioners approached the High Court.
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel observed, “… it is clear that the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the application and ought to have allowed the petition and directed the Court to return the petition to file the same before the Family Court for want of jurisdiction and hence the order requires to be set aside and revision petition requires to the allowed.”
The Court, therefore, directed the Trial Court to return the petition to submit the same before the Family Court. Accordingly, the Court allowed the plea and set aside the order of the Trial Court.
Cause Title- Nasima Banu & Anr. v. Shabas Khan & Ors.
