The court highlights jurisdictional inconsistencies between Gram Nyayalayas and Family Courts, setting a precedent for handling maintenance cases.
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has quashed orders issued by the Gram Nyayalaya in Dhampur, Bijnor, citing jurisdictional discrepancies with the Family Court. The case, titled "Amit Kumar Rana v. State of U.P.," centered on maintenance disputes under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, formerly the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Presided over by Justice Harvir Singh, the court addressed the legal question of whether a Gram Nyayalaya, presided over by a Civil Judge of the Junior Division, could modify or set aside an order passed by a Family Court, which is presided over by a higher judicial authority.
The petitioner, Amit Kumar Rana, challenged the orders dated March 25, 2025, and October 1, 2024, issued by the Gram Nyayalaya, which directed him to comply with a prior maintenance order from the Family Court. The primary contention was that the Gram Nyayalaya lacked the jurisdiction to alter or enforce decisions made by the Family Court.
The High Court's judgment underscored the jurisdictional conflict arising from overlapping provisions in the Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008, and the Family Courts Act, 1984. Justice Singh emphasized that Family Courts, being presided over by officers of the Higher Judicial Service cadre, have exclusive jurisdiction over maintenance cases. He noted that while Gram Nyayalayas have concurrent jurisdiction, they cannot override or modify decisions already adjudicated by Family Courts.
The court further clarified that cases where rights have already been adjudicated by Family Courts cannot be transferred to Gram Nyayalayas. Only fresh cases or interim matters can be transferred, and even these are subject to limitations.
This ruling serves as a clarion call to rectify legislative inconsistencies and ensure that jurisdictional boundaries are clearly defined, thereby preventing judicial overlap and maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.
Bottom Line:
The Gram Nyayalaya cannot review, modify, or set aside an order passed by the Family Court under the Family Courts Act, 1984, as it leads to jurisdictional disparity and overlapping. Cases decided under Sections 126(2), 127, and 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) by the Family Courts cannot be transferred to the Gram Nyayalaya.
Statutory provision(s): Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008; Family Courts Act, 1984; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Article 227 of the Constitution of India; Sections 125, 126(2), 127, 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).
Amit Kumar Rana v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2880758
