Punjab & Haryana High Court Clarifies Jurisdiction of Family Courts, Holds Civil Court Proceedings Post-Establishment of Family Court Invalid
Case Name: Shakuntla and Another v. Suresh and Others
Date of Judgment: October 13, 2025
Citation: CREF-1-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikas Bahl
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that once a Family Court is established under the Family Courts Act, 1984, Civil Courts immediately cease to have jurisdiction over matters falling within the ambit of Section 7 of the Act, including suits for maintenance under Section 3(b)(ii) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. Justice Vikas Bahl ruled that any evidence recorded or proceedings conducted by a Civil Court after the establishment of a Family Court are legally invalid and cannot be relied upon. The Court further clarified that appeals arising from judgments passed by Civil Courts before the establishment of a Family Court remain maintainable before the competent appellate court.
Summary: A reference was made by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Fatehabad, seeking the High Court’s opinion on two legal questions: (i) whether the Additional District Judge was competent to hear an appeal and cross-objection against a judgment passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fatehabad, and (ii) whether evidence recorded by the Civil Judge after the establishment of the Family Court could be considered by the Family Court.
The case stemmed from a suit filed by Shakuntla and her daughter under Section 3(b)(ii) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, seeking marriage expenses from Suresh Kumar, the husband and father. The suit, instituted in 2017, was partly decreed on April 18, 2022, by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fatehabad. By that time, however, a Family Court had already been established in Fatehabad on September 3, 2019, and all family-related matters were to be transferred there under Section 8 of the Family Courts Act. Despite this, the Civil Court continued proceedings and recorded evidence after the said date.
Justice Bahl held that the Additional District Judge was competent to entertain the appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it arose from a decree passed by a Civil Court before jurisdiction was transferred. However, he concluded that proceedings and evidence recorded by the Civil Court after September 3, 2019, were without jurisdiction and hence invalid. The Court relied on Anand Govind Bhide v. Rohini Bhide (2001 (1) DMC 646) and Kinarullaparambath Abdul Azeez v. Valiyaparambath Vasu (Kerala HC, 2019), affirming that post-establishment proceedings in a court lacking jurisdiction cannot be treated as judicial acts.
Decision: The High Court answered both reference questions by holding that:
- The Additional District Judge, Fatehabad, was competent to hear the appeal and cross-objection.
- All evidence and proceedings recorded after September 3, 2019, by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fatehabad, were invalid and could not be considered by the Family Court.
The Family Court was directed to recommence proceedings from the stage as it stood on September 3, 2019, allowing both parties to lead evidence afresh and decide the matter in accordance with law.