S.P. Bharucha, J. - (1.) A difference having arisen between the views of two learned single judges of this Court in respect of the interpretation to be placed upon the Family Courts Act, 1984, (hereinafter called "the said Act"), the following question has been referred for decision to the Division Bench: Whether, on the plaint as it stands, it is the Family Court which has the jurisdiction in respect of this suit by virtue of the Family Courts Act and therefore, on the establishment of the Family Court this Court has ceased to have jurisdiction in respect of this suit by virtue of Clause (a) of Section 8 of the Family Courts Act and the suit stands transferred to such Family Court by virtue of Clause (c) of Section 8 of the Family Courts Act.?
(2.) THE plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant, her husband, and has sought (a) a declaration that she is entitled to an undivided right, title and interest in the matrimonial home and to reside therein; (b) a declaration that she is entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 17,000/ - per month for herself and the issue of the marriage, a son, over and above certain other facilities; (c) an injunction restraining the defendant from disposing of the matrimonial home, inducting any third person therein and interfering with her right to the use and occupation thereof and (d) an order and decree for maintenance as aforesaid. The plaint avers that the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant was performed according to Hindu riles and a son was born, who is a minor. The conduct of the defendant is set out and, upon this basis, the aforementioned reliefs have been prayed for. It was urged on behalf of the defendant before the learned single Judge (Cazi, J.) that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit and that it was only the Family Court established under the said Act which had such jurisdiction. Thereupon the preliminary issue as aforestated was framed and tried. The learned Judge was inclined to follow the Full Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in Mary Thomas v. : AIR1990Mad100 , which held that the High Court's jurisdiction was not taken away by the said Act but he found that another learned single Judge of this Court (Chaudhari, J.) had taken a contrary view, following the Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in Patrick Martin v. Regine Martin, AIR [1989] Mad. 251. He, therefore, ordered that the matter be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for reference to a Division Bench to decide the preliminary issue.
(3.) WE may at once note that the Division Bench judgment which was followed by Chaudhari, J., namely that in Patrick Martin's case, has been over -ruled by the Full Bench judgment of that Court in Mary Thomas' case.;