Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 29.5.14 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, District Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') in Civil Suit No. 108/11, whereby the trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioners-defendants seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC.
(2.) In the instant case, it appears that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4-plaintiffs have filed the suit under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption & and Maintenance Act, 1956 against the present petitioners and the other respondent Nos. 5 to 7-defendants seeking permanent injunction, maintenance and for implementation of the family settlement which had taken place amongst the family members of the petitioners. It has been alleged by the respondents-plaintiffs in the plaint that the petitioner No. 1-defendant No. 1 happens to be the husband of the respondent No. 1 and father of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (original plaintiffs). The other defendants are the relatives of the petitioner No.1-defendant No. 1. The respondents-plaintiffs have prayed for the injunction in respect of the property which was an ancestral property and in respect of which the family settlement had taken place on 27.3.07 (Annex.2). It has been alleged interalia by the respondents-plaintiffs that the petitioner No.1 was ill treating the respondent No. 1 and therefore she along with her children was staying separately and had right to claim maintenance from the petitioners-defendants. The respondents-plaintiffs have prayed for three reliefs in the suit interalia; (1) for permanent injunction in respect of the suit property belonging to the petitioners-defendants, (2) seeking payment of maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month from the defendants and (3) seeking implementation of the family settlement dated 27.3.07. The petitioners-defendants therefore filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of CPC contending interalia that in view of the provisions contained in Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the plaint was liable to be rejected. The said application has been dismissed by the trial court, hence the present petition has been filed.
(3.) Though it has been contended by the learned counsel Mr. Vipin Sharma for the respondents-plaintiffs that the petitioners could have filed revision under Section 115 of CPC, and the present petition would not be maintainable, the court is of the opinion that availability of alternative remedy itself would not be a bar against filing of the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs has also drawn the attention of the court to the provisions contained in Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act to submit that the suit having been filed under the said Act, which is a special Act, the provisions contained in the Family Courts Act would not be applicable. However the court does not find substance in the said submission also. As per Section 20, of the Family Courts Act, the provisions of the said Act have effect over the other laws for the time being in force. Hence, the provisions of the Family Courts Act have overriding effect over the provisions contained in other Acts including the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.;