High Court dismissed WP challenging Family Court's order rejecting jurisdiction application under CPC Section 9A, holding contentions do not negate jurisdiction at that stage.
Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
DSS
912-wp-869-16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 869 OF 2016
| Shakir Mohd. Ebrahim | .. Petitioner |
|---|---|
| vs. | |
| Ms Zakia Shakir Ebrahim | .. Respondent |
Ms Deepti Chand for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent.
CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : 28 JULY 2016.
P.C. :-
1] The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 25 November 2015, by which the Family Court, Mumbai at Bandra has rejected the petitioner's application under Section 9A of the CPC questioning the jurisdiction of the Family Court to entertain the Petition No. B-31 of 2013.
2] The objection raised by the petitioner, which is very well articulated by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petition as instituted seeks reliefs not only in respect of the portion, which is occupied by the respondent or which may be styled as the matrimonial property, but the reliefs are applied for in respect of even portion of the property, which is clearly beyond. Further the
1/2
DSS
912-wp-869-16
learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the property is owned by the Public Charitable Trust.
3] At the stage of deciding an application under Section 9 A of the CPC, such contentions are to a great extent irrelevant. Such contentions do not go to the root of jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Such contentions may be relevant in deciding the nature and extent of relief, if any, which the petitioner may be ultimately found entitled to. Besides, it is not as if such contentions have been rejected by the Family Court while making the impugned order. All that the Family Court has held that such questions can be answered only upon the conclusion of the trial. There is clearly no jurisdictional error or perversity in the making of the impugned order.
no order as to costs.
(M. S. SONAK, J.)
dinesh
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Family Court committed a jurisdictional error in rejecting the application questioning its jurisdiction under Section 9A of the CPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shakir Mohd. Ebrahim
Ms Zakia Shakir Ebrahim
M. S. Sonak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
