Gram Nyayalaya Lacks Jurisdiction To Deal With Applications Under Muslim Women (Protection Of Rights On Divorce) Act: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that Gram Nyayalaya under the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 lacks jurisdiction to consider applications filed under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas found that Gram Nyayalaya cannot deal with applications filed under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act seeking maintenance or mahr to be given...
The Kerala High Court has held that Gram Nyayalaya under the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 lacks jurisdiction to consider applications filed under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas found that Gram Nyayalaya cannot deal with applications filed under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act seeking maintenance or mahr to be given to the wife at the time of divorce.
“In the absence of inclusion of petitions filed under the Act in the Schedule to the GN Act, no elaborate discussion is required to conclude that the Grama Nyayalaya, as a court of exclusive jurisdiction is not entitled to deal with applications under the Act.
In this case, the petitioner sent talaq letters to the second respondent who in turn filed application seeking maintenance or mahr before the Gram Nyayalaya. The petitioner thus approached the High Court challenging the jurisdiction of the Gram Nyayalaya to deal with an application under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act.
The Court noted that the petitioner approached the Gram Nyayalaya instead of filing application seeking maintenance or mahr before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court.
The Court observed that Section 12 of the Gram Nyayalayas Act confers criminal jurisdiction to Gram Nyayalaya to try offences mentioned in Part I of the First Schedule.
The Court found that while an application for a maintenance order under the CrPC is explicitly listed in the First Schedule, applications for maintenance under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act are not included.
The Court said, “Since it has already been held that the Gram Nyayalaya does not possess the jurisdiction to deal with an application under Section 3 of the Act, it is necessary that Ext.P1 application be directed to be returned to the petitioner to be presented before the proper forum within a time frame, in accordance with the law.”
Accordingly, the Court held that the application seeking maintenance filed by the second respondent under Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act was filed before the wrong forum. It thus directed the application to be returned to the second respondent for it to be presented before the proper forum.
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates S Sunil Mauryan, G N Nisha Nair
Counsel for Respondents: Advocates S.Nikhil Sankar, B.G.Harindranath, Suvin R Menon, Amith Krishnan H, Public Prosecutor Noushad K A
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 527
Case Title: Shiyas S v State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(CRL.) NO. 276 OF 2022