IN THE MATTER OF ASHRAYA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are preferred by petitioners in Miscellaneous Cases Nos.10087/89 and 10078/89 against the common order dated 22-9-1989 made in seven clubbed cases by the Court of XIX Additional City Civil Judge ("the Court of City Civil Judge"), Bangalore, directing return of the applications filed by them under sub-s.(4) of S. 9 of the Hindu Adoptions and Mainteance Act, 1956 ("the Act"), as per R.10 of O.VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, at the same time requiring the petitioners to avail of the provision in R. 10-A of O.VII of that Code.

(2.) Canara Bank Relief and Welfare Society, the first appellant in each of these appeals, was the first petitioner in each of the cases Misc.Case No.1087/89 and Misc.Case No. 10078/89,on the file of the Court of City Civil Judge.K.S.Nair and Mrs. Sulekha Nair, the second and the third appellants in M.F.A.FR. No.12573/89,were the second and the third petitioners in Misc.Case No. 10087/89,on the file of the Court of City Civil Judge.T.L.Narayana Rao and Smt. Meenakshi Narayana Rao, the second and the third appellants in M. F. A. FR. No.12575/89 were the second and the third petitioners in Misc.Case No. 10078/89,on the file of the Court of City Civil Judge. Of the two abandoned children of Hindu religion, who were under the care and protection of the first petitioner (first appellant here),one was sought to be given in adoption to K.S.Nair and Mrs.Sulekha Nair,petitioners 2 and 3 in Misc. Case No. 10087/89,and another was sought to be given in adoption to T. L. Narayana Rao and Smt. Meenakshi Narayana Rao, petitioners 2 and 3 in Misc. Case No. 10078/89.As previous permission of the Court was required to be obtained under sub-s.(4) of S. 9 of the Act to give such children in adoption to any person/s,the first petitioner along with the intending adoptive parents filed the said applications in the Court of City Civil Judge to obtain such permission and those applications had been registered in that Court as Miscellaneous Cases.But,the Court of City Civil Judge,by its order under appeals,since took the view that it is only the Family Court of Bangalore City established under the Family Courts Act, 1986 ("the Family Court Act") which had the jurisdiction to deal with such applications,the petitioners therein have presented these appels questioning the correctness of that order, as stated at the outset.

(3.) The short question,which arises for our decision in these appeals,being whether the Family Court of Bangalore City established under the Family Courts Act has jurisdiction to deal with the applications under S. 9(4) of the Act filed by petitioner-1 along with other petitioners, we propose to deal with it by referring to the material provisions of the Act and the material provisions of the Family Court Act bearing on the question.