Full Banking Rules Madras High Court retains jurisdiction in custody circumstances – The New Indian Express

Through Express Message Service

CHENNAI: A full chamber of the Madras High Court ruled by a 3-2 majority in favor of the High Court’s original jurisdiction over custody and guardianship matters, even after the Family Courts Act came into force.

Justices R. Mahadevan, M. Sundar and AA Nakkiran held that the High Court’s original jurisdiction could not be superseded by the introduction of the Family Courts Act, while Justices PN Prakash and N. Anand Venkatesh delivered a contradictory note and opposed the original responsibility of the HC decided.

The matter has been referred by a three-judge panel to the larger Chamber to decide whether the HC’s jurisdiction in matters of custody and guardianship is supplanted in view of the provisions of Explanatory Note (g) to Section 7(1). Sections 8 and 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. And also to determine whether the decision of a full bench of that court in Mary Thomas v. Dr. KE Thomas (AIR 1990 Madras 100) is still good right.

During the hearing, the petitioners supported the concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court and the lower courts concerned and submitted the decision. The petitioners further argued that the HC has jurisdiction over patent specifications and that jurisdiction cannot be tacitly withdrawn. Thus, although Section 8 of the Family Courts Act was a disclaimer, it did not supplant the HC’s jurisdiction.
Defendants argued that the HC’s powers under the Letters patent were contingent upon statutory provisions.

CHENNAI: A full chamber of the Madras High Court ruled by a 3-2 majority in favor of the High Court’s original jurisdiction over custody and guardianship matters, even after the Family Courts Act came into force. Justices R. Mahadevan, M. Sundar and AA Nakkiran held that the High Court’s original jurisdiction could not be superseded by the introduction of the Family Courts Act, while Justices PN Prakash and N. Anand Venkatesh delivered a contradictory note and opposed the original responsibility of the HC decided. The matter has been referred by a three-judge panel to the larger Chamber to decide whether the HC’s jurisdiction in matters of custody and guardianship is supplanted in view of the provisions of Explanatory Note (g) to Section 7(1). Sections 8 and 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. And also to determine whether the decision of a full bench of that court in Mary Thomas v. Dr. KE Thomas (AIR 1990 Madras 100) is still good right. During the hearing, the petitioners supported the concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court and the lower courts concerned and submitted the decision. The petitioners further argued that the HC has jurisdiction over patent specifications and that jurisdiction cannot be tacitly withdrawn. Thus, although Section 8 of the Family Courts Act was a disclaimer, it did not supplant the HC’s jurisdiction. Defendants argued that the HC’s powers under the Letters patent were contingent upon statutory provisions.

Comments are closed.