Halimabi Hussain Parande v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Jul 2014APPLN/242/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an application praying for transfer of a maintenance petition from the Family Court to the Judicial Magistrate. Relying on settled law, the judgment held that the Family Court lacks jurisdiction under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, and ordered transfer to the District Court.

What did the court decide?

Petition No. 67/2012 in Family Court transferred to District Court, Kolhapur for assignment before appropriate Judicial Magistrate First Class.

Halimabi Hussain Parande Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

3.Appln242_2014

¶2

Vidya amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 242 OF 2014

¶5

Halimabi Hussain Parande … Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

¶6

Mr. Anand S. Patil, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Alpa Javeri, APP for the State.

¶7

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 18^th July, 2014.

¶8

P.C.

¶9

This Application is moved under section 407 of Cr. P.C. praying that the Petition no. 67/2012 which is pending on the file of Family Court, Kolhapur is to be transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kolhapur .

¶10

The learned counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that the notice is not issued to the respondent/husband. The petition is filed under under section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 for seeking maintenance. The learned counsel has submitted that he has earlier filed this petition under section 3 of the said Act before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kolhapur, which was earlier numbered as 647/2007. However, after the establishment of the Family Court, the said matter was transferred to the Family Court, which is newly numbered as 67/2012. However, the Family Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide any Application under the

¶11

1 Of 2

¶12

3.Appln242_2014

¶13

said Act and therefore, he prays that the Petition be transferred to Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kolhapur.

¶14

In this case, though the notice is not issued to respondent/husband, it is a matter of jurisdiction and as the law is settled on this point, the application is hereby disposed of. In the case of Noor Jamal Habib Momin vs. Haseena w/o. Noor Jamaal, reported in 1993 Mh. L.J. 749 wherein the Division Bench of this High Court has held that the said act is a complete code itself and jurisdiction to adjudicate on rights under the Act lies with the Judicial Magistrate First Class. In view of this, the following order is passed:

¶15

(i) Petition No. 67/2012 lying in the Family Court is transferred to District Court, Kolhapur. The Chief Judicial Magistrate to assign this matter before any appropriate Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class. The concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class is directed to thereafter give notice to the respondent/husband.

¶16

(ii) Petition to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 4^th August, 2014.

¶17

(iii) Family Court, Kolhapur to take speedy steps for transfer.

¶18

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶19

2 Of 2

Halimabi Hussain Parande v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Halimabi Hussain Parande v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishnu Waman Bomble Vs Mahadu Rama Bomble and Ors.

Ganesh Suryakant Yeolekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anand Umashankar Mishra Vs the State of Maharashtra

Eknath Dattu Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prakash Jalindar More and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sandesh Bhagwan Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra