Full bench guidelines Madras Excessive Courtroom retains jurisdiction in little one custody cases- The New Indian Specific
CHENNAI: A full bench of the Madras High Court, by a 3:2 majority, ruled in favor of the High Court’s original jurisdiction over child custody and guardianship matters even after the Family Courts Act came into force.
Justices R Mahadevan, M Sundar and AA Nakkiran held that the High Court’s original jurisdiction cannot be ousted with the advent of the Family Court Act while Justices PN Prakash and N Anand Venkatesh struck a discordant note, ruling against the HC’s original jurisdiction.
The matter was referred to the larger bench by a three-judge bench to decide on whether the jurisdiction of the HC over matters of child custody and guardianship is ousted in view of the provisions of Explanation (g) to Section 7(1) read with Sections 8 and 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. And also to decide whether the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Mary Thomas vs Dr KE Thomas (AIR 1990 Madras 100) is still good law.
During the hearing, the petitioners supported the concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court and the concerned subordinate courts and submitted the decision. The petitioners further submitted that the HC had Letters Patent jurisdiction and this jurisdiction could not be taken away impliedly. Thus, even though Section 8 of the Family Courts Act was an ouster of jurisdiction, it did not oust the jurisdiction of the HC.
The respondents argued that the HC’s power under the Letters Patent was subject to legislative enactments.
CHENNAI: A full bench of the Madras High Court, by a 3:2 majority, ruled in favor of the High Court’s original jurisdiction over child custody and guardianship matters even after the Family Courts Act came into force. Justices R Mahadevan, M Sundar and AA Nakkiran held that the High Court’s original jurisdiction cannot be ousted with the advent of the Family Court Act while Justices PN Prakash and N Anand Venkatesh struck a discordant note, ruling against the HC’s original jurisdiction. The matter was referred to the larger bench by a three-judge bench to decide on whether the jurisdiction of the HC over matters of child custody and guardianship is ousted in view of the provisions of Explanation (g) to Section 7(1) read with Sections 8 and 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. And also to decide whether the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Mary Thomas vs Dr KE Thomas (AIR 1990 Madras 100) is still good law. During the hearing, the petitioners supported the concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court and the concerned subordinate courts and submitted the decision. The petitioners further submitted that the HC had Letters Patent jurisdiction and this jurisdiction could not be taken away impliedly. Thus, even though Section 8 of the Family Courts Act was an ouster of jurisdiction, it did not oust the jurisdiction of the HC. The respondents argued that the HC’s power under the Letters Patent was subject to legislative enactments.
Comments are closed.