ISRAR BEG Vs. SHAHNAZ BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The husband is the appellant. The divorced wife lodged a complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly for payment of the 'Din-Mahr'. 'Dahef' and maintenance of herself and minor daughter. The case was thereafter transferred to the Family Court, Bareilly, for disposal. The appellant moved an application on 18-2-1991 praying for sending back the case to the Magistrate Court on the ground that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to dispose of an application under Section 3 of Muslim Woman (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 (hereinafter called as Act of 1986). The said petition was rejected by the Family Court and hence this appeal.

(2.) The learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that case under the said Act of 1986 cannot be tried in a Family Court. He has referred the decision of A.A. Siddiqui Vs. Smt. Salma, AIR 1992, Allahabad, page 322 .' He has also submitted that Sec. 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 provides that these cases which are triable in civil court and in Magistrate's Court under Chapter IX of the Criminal Procedure Code, are only triable by the Family Court unless the jurisdiction of the Family Court is extended by any enactment under Sec. 7 (2)(h) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. Sub,mission of the learned Advocate is that Sec. 3 of the Act of 1986 does not come under any of these categories.

(3.) The learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that Explanation (c) of Sec. 7(i) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 speaks that a suit of proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or either of them can be tried before a Family Court. It was submitted that 'Din-Mehar' and 'Dahcj' comes under this category. Moreover, the claim of maintenance of the wife and the minor daughter of the appellant comes under the provision of Sec. 125 of Criminal Procedure Code which is also triable by the Family Court under Sec. 7(2)(a) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.