Transfer Of Maintenance Proceedings From Family Court To Gram Nyayalaya Valid: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has upheld the transfer of maintenance proceedings from Family Court to the Gram Nyayalayas under Section 16 of the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008.
Observing that the provisions, under which the order of the transfer of maintenance proceedings from Family Court to Gram Nyayalaya was passed, were not challenged, the bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi held,
“applying the settled principle that a later enactment prevails over an earlier enactment in case of inconsistency, the transfer of maintenance proceedings from the Family Court constituted under the Family Courts Act, 1984 to the Gram Nyayalaya under Section 16 of the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 is held to be valid.”
Petitioners challenged the administrative order of the Family Court transferring their cases to respective village courts (Gram Nyayalaya).
Section 12(1)(b), read with the First Schedule Part II, point (v) to the Act, enable Gram Nyayalayas to entertain claims of maintenance arising under the Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter IX (Section 125 to 128) and Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita chapter X (Section 144 to 147). Section 16 of the Act provides for transfer of pending cases and Section 18 provides for overriding effect of the Act on provisions of CrPC where inconsistent with each other.
The Court noted that the Family Courts Act provides for adjudication of family disputes.
The Court held that the Family Courts Act, 1984 and the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 are special legislations operating in distinct and well-defined spheres and in case of any possible overlap, the two must be read harmoniously to give full effect to both enactments.
“we are of the considered view that the legislative intent behind both Statutes are for providing more litigant friendly and easily accessible judicial forums as evidenced by Section 9 of the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008, and the framework of the Family Courts Act, 1984. It further gets support from mandating that judicial proceedings be brought to the doorsteps of the litigants to eradicate socio-economic and geographical barriers. If both laws are interpreted harmoniously, then there is no conflict and both are different steps taken to provide more conducive environment to litigants having family disputes, where the effort is to mediate and resolve first, which requires a friendly atmosphere.”
Unless there could be no harmonious construction of the two Acts, and one would necessarily violate the other, the Court held that one law could not be repealed impliedly to give way to the later legislation.
“In essence, the maxim serves as a rule of last resort, invoked only when reconciliation proves impossible. Its application ensures coherence in the legal system by preventing contradictory mandates from coexisting, while simultaneously respecting the supremacy of the latest legislative intent. Above principle assumes significance where two special statutes operate in the same field and contain conflicting provisions, the question of priority cannot be resolved merely by invoking the special nature of either enactment and in such circumstances, the later special statute is to be preferred.”
The Court observed that there was no challenge to the provisions of the Gram Nyayalaya Act which empowered the Gram Nyayalaya to entertain such transferred proceedings. Accordingly, it held that the order could not be interfered in writ jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Civil Court Bar Association And Another v. High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 157
Case citation : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 157