Cl. February C.O. 2028 of 2018
21 4, 2019
22. C.O. 2587 of 2018
C.O. 407 of 2019
Mr. Jahar Chakraborty,
Mr. Ashok Kumar Mondal,
Ms. Fatima Hassan,
…for the petitioner.
Mr. Souradipta Banerjee,
Mr. Ardhendu Nag,
Mr. S. K. Dutta,
Mr. S. C. Mitra,
…for the opposite party.
C.O. 2028 of 2018, C.O. 2587 of 2018 and C.O. 407 of 2019
are taken up together for hearing, since those arise from connected
Mr. Souradipta Banerjee, learned advocate, appears on
behalf of the opposite party and submits that his junior, Mr.
Ardhendu Nag, learned advocate, files vakalatnama on behalf of the
opposite party on February 1, 2019 under filing no. A-2115 in C.O.
2587 of 2018 and under filing no. A.2114 in C.O. 407 of 2019 and
on September 7, 2018 under filing no. A-12918 in C.O. 2028 of
Office is directed to incorporate the vakalatnama filed by
Mr. Nag in the respective records of this case.
C.O. 407 of 2019 has been filed against an order whereby
the Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta, permitted the
petitioner to take back his application for custody of the person as
well as property of a minor on the ground that the City Civil Court
at Calcutta did not have jurisdiction to take up the matter. The
petitioner, being thus compelled, approached the Family Court at
Calcutta with a similar prayer. However, in the Family Court, the
opposite party took out an application challenging the
maintainability of the application on the ground of Section 7(1)(g)
of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which specifies that the Family
Court has jurisdiction to take up suits or proceedings in relation to
guardianship only of the person or custody of or access to a minor,
and does not provide for the said court taking up any matter
pertaining to the property of a minor.
The other two revisional applications have been taken out
against orders passed by the Family Court after the matter was
The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner
places reliance on the Second Schedule of the City Civil Court Act,
1953 (as amended recently) and submits that the Guardians and
Wards Act, 1890 has been referred to therein. The said Schedule,
read in conjunction with Section 5(3)(i) of the said Act of 1953, it is
submitted, confers jurisdiction on the City Civil Court at Calcutta to
take up all matters under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
As to the limited jurisdiction of the Family Court concerning
only the person of a minor, the learned advocate for the petitioner
concedes to the said proposition and submits that the petitioner is
ready to withdraw the matter from the Family Court and prosecute
the matter which was returned by the City Civil Court at Calcutta.
The learned advocate appearing on the behalf of the opposite
party, on the other hand, submits that the Family Court does not
have jurisdiction to hear matters regarding the custody of the
property of a minor and, as such, the proceeding before the Family
Court was not maintainable. In view of the City Civil Court at
Calcutta having only the general power to take up matters under the
Guardians and Wards Act, it is argued, the jurisdiction to adjudicate
matters relating to the person of a minor still vested with the Family
A perusal of the respective Acts shows that there is no
specific non-obstante clause in the relevant Sections of the Family
Courts Act, 1984 whereas Section 21 of the City Civil Court Act,
1953 specifically provides that the said Act shall have effect
notwithstanding anything contrary to any other law, including in
particular the Letters Patent of the High Court.
In such view of the matter, since Section 5(3) (i), read with
Second Schedule, of the City Civil Court Act, 1953 specifically
confers jurisdiction on the City Civil Court at Calcutta to take up all
matters under the Guardians and Wards Act, it is evident that the
City Civil Court at Calcutta refused to exercise jurisdiction vested
in it by law in returning the application for guardianship and
custody made by the petitioner.
In view of the prayers made by the petitioner, the petitioner
will now proceed with the matter before the City Civil Court at
Calcutta and withdraw the application filed before the Family
Accordingly, the revisional application bearing C.O. 407 of
2019 is allowed on contest, thereby setting aside the orders
impugned therein and directing the Chief Judge, City Civil Court at
Calcutta to take up for hearing and dispose of Act VIII Case No. 3
of 2017, pending in the said court, as expeditiously as possible. The
parties are permitted to move urgent interlocutory matters before the
said court at the earliest, as and when required.
Consequentially, the other two revisional applications
bearing C.O. 2028 of 2018 and C.O. 2587 of 2018 are disposed of
in the light of the above observations.
It is made clear that the petitioner will immediately approach
the Family Court at Calcutta and take steps to get the matter,
pending at the instance of the petitioner in the said court, dismissed
There will be no order as to costs
( Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J. )