Grama Nyayalayas lack jurisdiction to decide maintenance cases in places where family courts exist: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court recently held that maintenance cases must be decided by family courts in areas where they are established and not by Grama Nyayalayas, even though such bodies are otherwise empowered to deal with maintenance claims [Faseela & ors v Jaleel].

Grama Nyayalayas are established under the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008, to provide rapid, affordable, and accessible justice to citizens in rural India.

Justice K Babu held that Grama Nyayalayas have the jurisdiction to decide on maintenance claims only in the absence of a specific court dealing with such matters.

However, once a family court is established for an area, only such courts can deal with maintenance disputes - not Grama Nyayalayas. The statutory scheme under the Family Courts Act, 1984, specifically barred other courts from hearing maintenance claims, the High Court explained.

"As per Section 8(b) of the Family Courts Act, where a Family Court has been established for any area, no magistrate shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction or powers under Chapter IX of the CrPC," the Court noted.

The Court passed the ruling on a plea filed by a woman and her children (petitioners) seeking the transfer of a maintenance case from the Grama Nyayalaya at Kunnummal, Kuttiyadi, to a family court in Vadakara.

The petitioners in 2016 had filed a case before the Grama Nyayalaya seeking maintenance from the woman's husband under Section 125 of the Criminal Code of Procedure (CrPC). An ex-parte order was initially passed in their favour in 2017 by the Grama Nyayalaya.

However, in 2023, the husband succeeded in getting the order set aside following which the case was reopened for trial.

During the ensuing proceedings, the husband raised an objection that the Grama Nyayalaya had no jurisdiction to hear the case, since a family court had already been established for the area.

This led the petitioners to approach the High Court seeking a formal transfer of the case to the family court.

The Court observed that the Family Courts Act is a special law that specifically deals with family disputes and related issues. On the other hand, the Gram Nyayalayas Act is more general in nature, covering a broader range of disputes, including maintenance.

Applying the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant (general things do not derogate from special things), the Court explained that when two laws operated in similar spheres or were in conflict, the special law would prevail.

In the present case, this meant that the Family Courts Act would prevail over the Gram Nyayalayas Act.

The Court concluded that only the family court at Vadakara had jurisdiction to decide the petitioners' maintenance claim and allowed their transfer petition.

Advocates Ameen Hassan K, Lisna Sherin TT, and Ummul Fadla T appeared for the petitioners.

[Read Judgment]