Madras High Court Full Bench Rules in favor of the High Court’s authentic jurisdiction to listen to custody circumstances

The Madras Supreme Court on Friday ruled in a 3-2 majority decision in favor of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to hear custody and guardianship cases

The bench of five judges, consisting of Judge PN Prakash, Judge R Mahadevan, Judge M Sunder, Judge Anand Venkatesh and Judge AA Nakkiran, was formed after referral by a three-judge judge to answer the following questions:

(i) Whether the High Court, on its original side, has jurisdiction in matters of custody and guardianship of children in relation to the provisions of Explanatory Note (g) to Section 7(1) in conjunction with Sections 8 and 20 of the Family Courts Act , 1984?

(ii) Whether the decision of a full bench of that court in Mary Thomas Vs. KEThomas (AIR 1990 Madras 100) is still good law?

Judge R Mahadevan, Judge M Sunder and Judge AA Nakkiran rendered majority judgment, holding that the High Court’s jurisdiction on the original page is not supplanted in view of explanation (g) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act. They further noted that the judgment in Mary Thomas continued to be good law.

However, Judge PN Prakash and Judge Anand Venkatesh ruled against the High Court’s original jurisdiction, ruling that Mary Thomas was not good law.

During the hearing, the petitioners supported the High Court’s competing jurisprudence and argued that the decision in Mary Thomas was good law. It has been argued that the word “district court” has no uniform meaning and its meaning depends on each act.

The petitioners had further argued that the Madras Supreme Court has jurisdiction over letter patents and that jurisdiction cannot be tacitly withdrawn. Thus, although Section 8 of the Family Courts Act was a disclaimer, it did not supersede the jurisdiction of the High Court. The petitioners also advocated a harmonious construction, arguing that the jurisdiction of the High Court, which was conferred by a particular legislature (Letters patent) cannot be taken away by general legislation (Family Courts Act).

The defendants pleading for the High Court to be deprived of jurisdiction argued that the powers of the High Court under the Letters Patent were dependent on statutory instruments. Thus, if there is any law made by Parliament or the Legislature providing anything other than that provided for in the Letters Patent, it will have authority over the Letters Patent as provided for in Clause 44 (which would take precedence over Clause 17).

Respondents also contended that matrimonial jurisdiction was not the court’s original jurisdiction. An exclusive court under the law and concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court together would not be appropriate. The defendants further argued that the Family Courts Act was exclusive legislation and that the intention of Parliament was to confer powers solely on the High Court

Case title: S. Annapoorni v. K Vijay

Case #: Application #5445 of 2018