# Amit Kumar Rana v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 2176
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-10
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 9426 of 2025
- **Bench:** Harvir Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amit-kumar-rana-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54493
- **Pages:** 15

## Text

_Characters 0–39,138 of 45,072. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39138 for what follows._

2176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 2176
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE HARVIR SINGH, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 9426 of 2025

Amit Kumar Rana ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Issues for Consideration
(i) Whether proceedings under Sections 127 and 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding
Sections 146 and 147 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), arising out of a maintenance order
passed by a Family Court, can validly be transferred to and decided by a Gram Nyayalaya?
(ii) Whether, notwithstanding the concurrent jurisdiction conferred upon Gram Nyayalayas in respect of
proceedings under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a Gram Nyayalaya can exercise
jurisdiction over proceedings seeking modification, cancellation or execution of an order passed by a Family
Court?
(iii) Whether the impugned orders passed by the Gram Nyayalaya under Sections 127 and 128 CrPC were
liable to be set aside on account of inconsistency between the Family Courts Act, 1984 and the Gram
Nyayalayas Act, 2008?

Headnotes
Family Courts Act, 1984 - Sections 7 and 8 - Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 - Sections 11, 12 and
First Schedule - Chapter IX, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Concurrent jurisdiction -
Scope.

HELD: Though the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 confers jurisdiction upon Gram Nyayalayas to entertain
proceedings relating to maintenance of wives, children and parents under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, the jurisdiction vested in the Family Courts under Sections 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act,
1984 continues to operate in respect of matters adjudicated by the Family Courts. The conferment of
jurisdiction upon Gram Nyayalayas does not authorise a Gram Nyayalaya to exercise supervisory or corrective
jurisdiction over orders already passed by a Family Court.

Family Courts Act, 1984 - Sections 7 and 8 - Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 - Sections 11, 12 and
18 - Transfer of proceedings - Proceedings under Sections 127 and 128 CrPC - Validity.

HELD: Proceedings under Sections 127 and 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are continuation of
proceedings arising out of an order already passed under Section 125 CrPC. Where the original order
determining the rights of the parties has been passed by a Family Court, subsequent proceedings seeking
alteration, cancellation or enforcement thereof cannot be transferred to a Gram Nyayalaya for adjudication, as
such transfer would result in a Judicial Officer of the rank of Civil Judge (Junior Division) effectively exercising
jurisdiction over an order passed by a Court constituted under the Family Courts Act, 1984 and presided over
by an officer of the Higher Judicial Service. Such an interpretation would be inconsistent with the scheme of
the Family Courts Act.
4 All. Amit Kumar Rana Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
2177
Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 - Sections 11, 12 and 18 - Family Courts Act, 1984 - Jurisdiction -
Overlapping statutory provisions - Harmonious construction.

HELD: The provisions of the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 and the Family Courts Act, 1984 are required to be
harmoniously construed. While Gram Nyayalayas are competent to exercise jurisdiction over matters falling
within Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in accordance with the jurisdiction conferred by the
Act, such jurisdiction cannot be construed to permit review, recall, modification or execution of an order
passed by a Family Court. To that extent, transfer of pending proceedings would be inconsistent with the
statutory scheme governing Family Courts.

Constitution of India - Article 227 - Gram Nyayalaya - Orders under Sections 127 and 128
CrPC - Supervisory jurisdiction.

HELD: The orders passed by the Gram Nyayalaya entertaining proceedings under Sections 127 and 128 CrPC
arising out of a maintenance order passed by the Family Court were without jurisdiction and liable to be
quashed. However, the maintenance order originally passed by the Family Court remained unaffected, leaving
it open to the parties to pursue such remedies as are available within the framework of the Family Courts Act,
1984.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 125, 127 and 128 (corresponding Sections 144,
146 and 147, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) - Maintenance proceedings - Transfer
to Gram Nyayalaya - Distinction between original proceedings and post-adjudication
proceedings.

HELD: While proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, in appropriate cases, may be instituted and entertained
before the Gram Nyayalaya in accordance with the jurisdiction conferred by the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008, a
different consideration arises where the rights of the parties have already been adjudicated by a Family Court.
Proceedings under Sections 127 and 128 CrPC seeking alteration, cancellation or enforcement of such
adjudicated rights constitute a continuation of the original proceedings and cannot be transferred to the Gram
Nyayalaya, as that would permit a Court of coordinate statutory jurisdiction, though presided over by an
officer of a different cadre, to deal with matters arising out of a concluded adjudication by the Family Court.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 127 (corresponding Section 146, Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) - Cancellation or alteration of maintenance - Remarriage of wife -
Competent forum.

HELD: Remarriage of the wife constitutes a change in circumstances entitling the husband to seek
cancellation or alteration of the maintenance order under Section 127 CrPC. However, where the maintenance
order has been passed by the Family Court, such question is required to be adjudicated within the framework
of the Family Courts Act by the competent Family Court. The High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution, declined to determine the disputed question of remarriage on merits, leaving
the parties to pursue the statutory remedy before the competent forum.

Family Courts Act, 1984 - Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 - Transfer of pending proceedings -
Limitation on transfer.

HELD: Cases pending before the Family Court may be transferred to the Gram Nyayalaya only so long as no
order determining the substantive rights of the parties has been passed and no question arises requiring
reconsideration, execution or modification of such adjudication. Proceedings under Sections 126(2), 127 and
128 CrPC (corresponding Sections 145(2), 146 and 147 BNSS, 2023), arising after adjudication by the Family
Court, are not liable to be transferred to the Gram Nyayalaya.
2178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Petition allowed. Orders dated 01.10.2024 and 25.03.2025 passed by the Gram Nyayalaya, Dhampur, District
Bijnor quashed. Order dated 06.03.2019 passed by the Family Court awarding maintenance to respondent No.
2 to remain operative till the date of her remarriage. Liberty reserved to the parties to pursue remedies before
the competent Family Court in accordance with law. (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Nil

List of Acts / Statutes/Books
Constitution of India; Family Courts Act, 1984; Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973;
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

List of Keywords
Family Court; Gram Nyayalaya; Maintenance; Transfer of proceedings; Concurrent jurisdiction; Jurisdictional
conflict; Execution of maintenance order.

Case Arising From
Orders dated 01.10.2024 and 25.03.2025 passed by the Gram Nyayalaya, Dhampur, District Bijnor in
proceedings under Sections 127 and 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, arising out of the
maintenance order dated 06.03.2019 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bijnor in
proceedings under Section 125 CrPC.

Appearance for Parties
For the Appellants: Sri Ram Bilas Prasad.
For the Respondents: Sri Anoop Singh, learned Government Advocate, and Sri Janardan Singh.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Harvir Singh, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

2. The instant petition has been filed against the impugned orders dated 25.3.2025 and
1.10.2024 under Section 127 Cr.PC, passed by the Gram Nyayalaya, Dhampur, District Bijnor.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially, an order dated 6.3.2019 was passed
by Principal Judge, Family Court, Bijnor, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (corresponding Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), wherein the
learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bijnor has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to respondent
No.2, as monthly maintenance, to be paid from the date of filing of application i.e. 28.4.2016.
Thereafter, aggrieved by order dated 6.3.2019, the petitioner moved a Criminal Revision No.1804/
2019, challenging the order dated 6.3.2019 on various grounds taken in the petition, wherein an
order was passed by this Court on 3.5.2019. The relevant/ operative portion of the said order dated
3.5.2019 passed by this Court is reproduced herein-under:-

"The operation of impugned order dated 06.3.2019 shall remain stayed provided and
with the condition that the applicant shall continue to pay the maintenance amount Rs.3000/- to
the opposite party no.2 per month regularly from the date of order and not from the date of filing
of application, during the pendency of this application or till further orders of this Court.
4 All. Amit Kumar Rana Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
2179

It is clarified that only the payment of arrears amount, accruing for the period in
between the date of application and the date of order, is being stayed by this Court till further
orders of this Court.

It is observed that if the applicant fails to comply with the aforesaid condition, the
interim order of stay passed by this Court shall be deemed to have been vacated automatically."

4. Thereafter, the only point stressed before the Court by the petitioner is that the respondent
no.2, i.e. his wife, got remarried on 26.01.2020, with one Manoj Kumar, therefore, she is not
entitled for any maintenance amount. On the other hand, it may usefully be noted that respondent
no.2 filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(corresponding Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) on 28.04.2016 i.e. much
earlier than the date of alleged marriage and that, she was granted maintenance from the date of
application only. It may be noted that, under the provision of Section 127 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, on proof of change in the circumstances of the income of a person, who is
receiving any monthly maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(corresponding Section 144 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the Magistrate/ Court
concerned may make such alteration in the order of maintenance, as he thinks fit. The Court
concerned has power to cancel any order, which was passed by it, (under Section 125 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973) in respect of a woman, from the date of her remarriage. Thus it is
clear from the above provision, that in case of such an eventuality, husband may approach the
Court concerned for recall/ cancellation of the order. This fact can not be decided in the instant
petition, there being an alternate efficacious statutory remedy available under law.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits, that the petitioner herein filed a
Miscellaneous Application No. 375 of 2021, under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bijnor on the ground that, the
circumstances have changed, as the respondent No. 2, the wife of the petitioner, got remarried, with
the third person and in that event, the petitioner was not obliged to pay any amount of maintenance.
The said Miscellaneous Application No. 375 of 2021 was limited to the extent, that circumstances
have changed and because of the change in circumstances, i.e., the alleged remarriage of
respondent No. 2, with a third person, the order dated 6.3.2019 was prayed to be recalled.
Respondent No. 2/ wife of the petitioner filed an objection in respect of Miscellaneous Application
No. 375 of 2021, before learned Principal Judge, Family Court. However, the said Miscellaneous
Application No. 375 of 2021 has taken a different turn at that stage, as much as, all the cases
pending before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court/ learned Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Bijnor, pertaining to Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), were directed to be transferred to Gram Nyayalaya and
the said order was passed by the then District Judge, Bijnor vide Administrative Order No.821/
2024, dated 22.2.2024, in furtherance of Notification No.331/ Admin. (Services)/2024, dated
15.2.2024 issued by this Court, on the administrative side and pursuant to Notification Nyay
Anubhag-2 (Subordinate Courts) No. 4/2024/89/ VII-Nyay-2-2024-216 G/2007 T.C.-II, Lucknow,
dated 14.2.2024 issued by State Government. By this notification dated 14th February 2024, the
then Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bijnor was appointed/ posted as Nyayadhikari, Gram
Nyayalaya at Tehsil Dhampur, District Bijnor, in the newly created Court vide G.O. No. 25/ 2015/
1462/ VII-Nyay-2-2015-2160/ 2007 dated 24.11.2015. By the Administrative Order No.821/ 2024,
2180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dated 22.2.2024, the then District Judge directed all the Civil Judges (Junior Division) and Judicial
Magistrates of the District Court, Bijnor to prepare a list of relevant civil and criminal cases falling
under Tehsil Dhampur area, to be transferrred to newly created Gram Nyayalaya, Dhampur,
pursuant to Notification Nyay Anubhag-2 (Subordinate Courts) No. 4/2024/89/VII-Nyay-2-2024216 G/2007 T.C.-II, Lucknow, dated 14.02.2024 issued by State Government and as per the
jurisdiction mentioned in Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008 and also, to make it available in the office of
District Judge. In the said order dated 22.2.2024, a reference was made to the First Schedule and
Second Schedule of Gram Nyayalaya Act 2008, stating therein, that Gram Nyayalaya has
jurisdiction over the subjects mentioned in the said Schedule 1 and 2. Part I and Part II of the First
Schedule and Part I of the Second Schedule are reproduced below:-

"THE FIRST SCHEDULE

(See Sections 12 and 14)

PART I

OFFENCES UNDER THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (45 OF
1860), ETC.

(i) offences not punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term
exceeding two years;

(ii) theft, under Section 379, Section 380 or Section 381 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860), where the value of the property stolen does not exceed rupees twenty thousand;

(iii) receiving or retaining stolen property, under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code
(45 of 1860), where the value of the property does not exceed rupees twenty thousand;

(iv) assisting in the concealment or disposal of stolen property, under Section 414 of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), where the value of such property does not exceed rupees twenty
thousand;

(v) offences under Sections 454 and 456 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860);

(vi) insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, under Section 504, and criminal
intimidation, punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine,
or with both, under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860);

(vii) abetment of any of the foregoing offences;

(viii) an attempt to commit any of the foregoing offences, when such attempt is an offence.

PART II

OFFENCES AND RELIEF UNDER THE OTHER CENTRAL
ACTS

(i) any offence constituted by an act in respect of which a complaint may be made under
Section 20 of the Cattle-trespass Act, 1871(1 of 1871);

(ii) the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (4 of 1936);

(iii) the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (11 of 1948);
4 All. Amit Kumar Rana Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
2181

(iv) the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (22 of 1955);

(v) order for maintenance of wives, children and parents under Chapter IX of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974);

(vi) the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (19 of 1976);

(vii) the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 (25 of 1976);

(viii) the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005).

THE SECOND SCHEDULE

(See Sections 13 and 14)

PART I
SUITS OF A CIVIL NATURE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF
GRAM NYAYALAYAS

(1) Civil Disputes:

(a) right to purchase of property;

(b) use of common pasture;

(c) regulation and timing of taking water from irrigation channel.

(2) Property Disputes:

(a) village and farm houses (Possession);

(b) water channels;

(c) right to draw water from a well or tube well.

(3) Other Disputes:

(a) claims under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (4 of 1936);

(b) claims under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (11 of 1948);

(c) money suits either arising from trade transaction or money lending;

(d) disputes arising out of the partnership in cultivation of land;

(e) disputes as to the use of forest produce by inhabitants of Gram Panchayats."

6. Hence, the then Principal Judge, Family Court, vide letter No. 844/ Family Court/ Bijnor,
dated 28.01.2026, has transferred, all such cases pertaining to sub-clause (v) of part II of the First
Schedule of Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008, i.e. order for maintenance of wives, children and parents,
under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), and consequently, the
Miscellaneous Application No. 375 of 2021, which was pending disposal before the learned
Additional Principal Judge, also got transferred to Gram Nyayalaya, Dhampur, Bijnor.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a legal issue that the Gram Nyayalaya was not
competent to pass any order, if a subject matter has been adjudicated and decided by the Family
Court Judge i.e. learned Principal Judge/ learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, who is
2182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
an officer of the rank of Higher Judicial Service Cadre, even if, jurisdiction has been conferred
upon the Gram Nyayalaya to decide the cases, pertaining to sub-clause (v) of part II of the first
Schedule of Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008, but continues to be exercised by the Family Courts as
well, on concurrent basis i.e. both the Gram Nyayalaya and Family Court will have jurisdiction
over Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023), concurrently.

8. On the other hand, respondent No. 2 has moved an application No. 62 of 2024, under
Section 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023), seeking the execution of the order dated 6.3.2019 passed by the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Bijnor. After hearing the parties, the learned Gram Nyayalaya passed the order dated
25.3.2025, thereby directing the petitioner to comply with the order dated 6.3.2019 passed by
learned Family Court, by which a sum of Rs. 3,000/- was fixed as monthly maintenance and issued
recovery warrant to the petitioner and hence, the instant petition under Article 227 of Constitution
of India, before this Court against the order dated 1.10.2024 and 25.03.2025 passed by learned
Gram Nyayalaya, Dhampur.

9. Besides deciding the case on merit, the petitioner has raised a legal issue that, even if the
jurisdiction has been conferred upon the Gram Nyayalaya, then also Gram Nyayalaya was not
competent to review/ uphold/ set aside/ modify or entertain any application or execution, against an
order passed by learned Principal Judge/ learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court i.e. an
officer of Higher Judicial Service Cadre, whereas the Gram Nyayalaya is headed by an officer of
the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and referred to the scheme of Family Courts Act 1984,
wherein the Family Courts still continued to exercise the jurisdiction over Chapter IX of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). Learned counsel
submitted, that both the Family Court, as well as Gram Nyayalaya, as of now, exercises concurrent
jurisdiction over Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, as per the hierarchy of the Courts
within the districts, the normal nomenclature is as under:-

Highest Judicial Officer being in district, District and Sessions Judge/ Principal Judge,
Family Court; Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Additional Principal Judge, Family Court;
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Civil Judge (Senior Division)/ Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division);
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate; Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Additional Civil Judge (Junior
Division); Judicial Magistrate,Gram Nyayalaya Adhikari.

Remedy of orders passed by the Gram Nyayalaya and Family Courts.
4 All. Amit Kumar Rana Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
2183

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Judicial Officers of the Districts,
discharge their duties as per the jurisdiction assigned to them, either under common law, such as
Indian Penal Code, Civil Procedure Code or any other law, for the time being in force and the
Gram Nyayalaya headed by an officer of the rank of Civil Judge (Junior Division) exercises
jurisdiction under Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008, on the subjects and other Acts, conferred upon, by
the jurisdiction in this behalf.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Family Courts Act, 1984, as
constituted by the Uttar Pradesh State Government, vide Notification No.79/11/86-Jus., dated
September 4, 1986, has conferred the jurisdiction upon Family Courts, initially exercised by a Ist-
Class Magistrate and the Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008 has conferred the jurisdiction upon the Gram
Nyayalaya as per part II of first Schedule, thereby empowered the Gram Nyayalaya to exercise
jurisdiction on the subjects and Sections under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that, as far the jurisdiction assigned to Family Courts, as per Family Court Act, 1984 is
concerned, the Family Courts have been given jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the
matters, with respect to Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) and further submits that, there is an overlapping, as far as
2184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
jurisdiction under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) as conferred upon Family Courts, as well as the Gram Nyayalaya Act,
2008. Hence, there is not only disparity, but the same leads to a situation, wherein an order passed
by an officer of the cadre of Higher Judicial Service or to say Principal Judge, Family Court/
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, then the same cannot be subjected to review/ recall or set
aside by the Gram Nyayalaya, which has happened in the present case i.e to say, that in the
beginning, an order was passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court under Section 125 the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) and thereafter,
the respondent in the present case, filed an application under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), bearing No,375 of 2021, which
was transferred for disposal to Gram Nyayalaya, Dhampur, Bijnor. Hence, learned Civil Judge
(Junior Division)/ Presiding Officer, Gram Nyayalaya exercised jurisdiction over and above the
order passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, an officer of the Higher Judicial
Service cadre, which has no parallel or does not enjoy any parity with respect to the Code of
Criminal Procedure or the matters being adjudicated upon by the Family Courts. As on date, the
Family Courts comprises the officer of Higher Judicial Service cadre only and there is nobody, who
is an officer of the rank of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate or Civil Judge (Senior
Division)/ Chief Judicial Magistrate, either attached or posted, within the scheme of Family Courts
Act, 1984.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, the legislature by conferring the
concurrent jurisdiction i.e. one under Family Court Act, 1984 and another under Gram Nyayalaya
Act, 2008, the former being exercised by the officers of the Higher Judicial Service cadre and the
later being exercised by the officers of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) cadre, has led to disparity,
and anomaly, within the cadre of the District Courts. Hence, the arrangement has not only created a
fuss, but has also led to disparity, judicial impropriety and overlapping in exercising jurisdiction,
over one and the single subject i.e. Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) by two different judicial officers in the hierarchy and
therefore, the subject matter of Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) ought not to have been included in Part II of the first
Schedule of Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008, as the same was fully operating under the scheme of
Family Courts Act, 1984, prior to the passage of Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008 and the system is still
operating within the Family Courts, concurrently.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, at the time of framing of the Gram
Nyayalaya Act, 2008, either the matter of adjudication by Family Courts in respect of Chapter IX
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) could
not be brought to the notice of the concerned Committee, which formulated Gram Nyayalaya Act,
2008 or it skipped the attention of the lawmakers, that two different Courts of judicial officers from
two different cadres, within the District have been assigned jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the same
subject matter i.e. Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). Consequently, within the local jurisdiction of District Courts, the Judicial
Magistrate, Ist Class and Sessions Judge/ Addl. Sessions Judge/ Principal Judge, Family Court/
Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court are exercising powers on the one and same Chapter IX of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).
4 All. Amit Kumar Rana Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
2185

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, Section 7(2) and 8(b) of Family
Courts Act, 1984 reads as follows:-

7. Jurisdiction.-

(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall also have and
exercise-

(a) the jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of the first class under Chapter IX
(relating to order for maintenance of wife, children and parents) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); and

(b) such other jurisdiction as may be conferred on it by any other enactment.

8. Exclusion of jurisdiction and pending proceedings.-

Where a Family Court has been established for any area,-

(b) no magistrate shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction or
powers under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974);

Therefore, on the one hand, the Family Courts excluded the jurisdiction to be exercised by a
first class Magistrate, as far as Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is concerned and prohibited the first class Magistrate to exercise
jurisdiction over subject matter of Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) and on the other hand, part II of the first Schedule
conferred jurisdiction upon a first class Magistrate to adjudicate upon subject matter of Chapter IX
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), under
the Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008. Therefore, there is a disparity, dissimilarity and overlapping and
anomaly in two jurisdictions, on the same subject of Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) and therefore, any matter being decided or
adjudicated by the Presiding Officer Gram Nyayalaya shall be in contravention of Section 8(b) of
Family Courts Act, 1984. Hence the orders dated 25.3.2025 and 1.10.2024 are liable to be quashed
and set aside.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Section 18, Chapter IV of Gram
Nyayalayas Act, 2008 reads as under:-

"18. Overriding effect of Act in criminal trial.- The provisions of this Act shall have
effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or
any other law, but save as expressly provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code shall, in so far
as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, apply to the proceedings before a Gram
Nyayalaya; and for the purpose of the said provisions of the Code, the Gram Nyayalaya shall be
deemed to be a Court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class."

From perusal of the aforesaid, Section 18 of the Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008, it is evident that,
the Presiding Officer Gram Nyayalaya will not adjudicate upon any matter, if the same is
inconsistent with the Act itself, for the time being in force. In the present case, not only the order
2186 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dated 1.10.2024 and 25.3.2025 have been passed by the Gram Nyayalaya, Dhampur, Bijnour, but
also in contravention of Section 8 (b) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the learned Gram Nyayalaya
has exercised power and jurisdiction both, over and above an order, passed by Family Court,
comprising a Judicial Officer of Higher Judicial Service cadre i.e. Sessions Judge/ Addl. Sessions
Judge/ Principal Judge, Family Court/ Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, and hence, both the
orders dated 1.10.2024 and 25.3.2025 are liable to be quashed and set aside.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that, as far as Section 7(2)(a) and
Section 8(b) of Family Courts Act, 1984 are concerned, they are separate and Section 7(2)(a) has
itself given power to first class Magistrate to exercise jurisdiction over Chapter IX of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, however, the same is not the issue before this Court and if there is
any anomaly within the framework of Family Courts Act, 1984, the same can be a separate subject
matter of adjudication and cannot be dealt with here in this case, as the petitioner has confined his
relief with respect to the orders passed by Gram Nyayalaya under Gram Nyaylaya Act, 2008.

18. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submits that
the order passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, under Section 125 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding Section 144 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023) awarding a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month to respondent No.2 is in accordance with
law. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further submits that the jurisdiction conferred upon the
Gram Nyayalaya has been done by a careful consideration by the legislature and the same cannot
be questioned before these proceedings and further submits that order dated 1.10.2024 and
25.3.2025 have been passed in accordance with law.

19. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that every officer, say Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, has exercised the jurisdiction under Family Court Act, 1984, a
separate statute, whereas the Gram Nyayalaya has exercised the jurisdiction under a separate statute
i.e. Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008 and therefore, unless and until a particular Section or part of the Act
is declared as redundant or overlapping, till then, every order passed by the Judicial Officer(s)
under two different Acts separately, cannot be termed as illegal or arbitrary. Learned counsel for
the respondent no.2 prays that the instant petition is liable to be dismissed, being devoid of merits.

20. Having considered the rival contentions and after having perused the relevant Sections of
the Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008 and the Family Courts Act, 1984, a further analysis is required with
respect to the anomaly and overlapping of the jurisdiction between the two Acts i.e. Gram
Nyayalaya Act, 2008 and the Family Courts Act, 1984.

Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008
Family Courts Act, 1984

11. Jurisdiction of Gram Nyayalaya.-
Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)
or the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of
1908) or any other law for the time being in
force, the Gram Nyayalaya shall exercise both
7. Jurisdiction.-
(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a
Family Court shall also have and exercise-
(a) the jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate
of the first class under Chapter IX (relating to
order for maintenance of wife, children and
4 All. Amit Kumar Rana Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
2187
civil and criminal jurisdiction in the manner
and to the extent provided under this Act.

parents) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974); and
(b) such other jurisdiction as may be conferred
on it by any other enactment.
12. Criminal jurisdiction.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)
or any other law for the time being in force,
the Gram Nyayalaya may take cognizance of
an offence on a complaint or on a police report
and shall-
(a) try all offences specified in Part I of the
First Schedule; and
(b) try all offences and grant relief, if any,
specified under the enactments included in
Part II of that Schedule.
(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of subSection (1), the Gram Nyayalaya shall also try
all such offences or grant such relief under the
State Acts which may be notified by the State
Government under sub-Section (3) of Section
14.
8. Exclusion of jurisdiction and pending
proceedings.-Where a Family Court has been
established for any area,-
(b) no magistrate shall, in relation to such
area, have or exercise any jurisdiction or
powers under Chapter IX of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974);

14. Power to amend Schedules.- (1) Where the
Central Government is satisfied that it is
necessary or expedient so to do, it may, by
notification, add to or omit any item in Part I
or Part II of the First Schedule or Part II of the
Second Schedule, as the case may be, and it
shall be deemed to have been amended
accordingly.

(2) ..

(3) If the State Government is satisfied that it
is necessary or expedient so to do, it may, in
consultation with the High Court, by
notification, add to any item in Part III of the
First Schedule or Part III of the Second
Schedule or omit from it any item in respect
of which the State Legislature is competent to
make laws and thereupon the First Schedule
or the Second Schedule, as the case may be,
shall be deemed to have been amended
accordingly.

20. Act to have overriding effect.-The
provisions of this Act shall have effect
notwithstanding
anything
inconsistent
therewith contained in any other law for the
time being in force or in any instrument having
effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.
2188 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

21. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, if a matter was to be transferred from
Family Court to Gram Nyayalaya, then in that event, both the Courts would have been headed by
the Judicial Officer of the same cadre, say Higher Judicial Services cadre or the Junior Division
cadre, but there is disparity and inequality, between the two posts, hence, a Judicial Officer of the
rank of Junior Division, who is much below the rank of Higher Judicial Services cadre, cannot
review/ recall or adjudicate upon the order passed by the Family Court, having the rank of District
Judge/ Principal Judge, Family Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, if a
case is transferred from Family court to Gram Nyayalaya and the Gram Nyayalaya, has dealt with
such a case, then an appeal can always be filed before the District Judge/ Additional District Judge
and consequently, an order passed by the Family Court, would further be a subject matter of appeal
before the District Judge, Additional District Judge. Then the petitioner prayed that, once an order
has been passed by the learned Family Court, deciding the rights between the parties, the said case
cannot be transferred to the Gram Nyayalaya. However, there is no bar in fresh filing of cases
before the Gram Nyayalaya.

22. A reference was also made to the Circular letter of High Court No. 14806/ Main-B/ G.N./
Admin. (A-3)/ Allahabad: Dated 16.12.2021, wherein the matter of jurisdiction has been dealt with
in the said circular letter, conferring jurisdiction of Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974) and clarified that, the Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008 would have an overriding effect
over the (conflicting) provisions of Family Courts Act, 1984, however, the same does not deal with
the disparity to the extent of disposal of cases pertaining to maintenance of wives, children and
parents under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) i.e. in one hand, a First Class Magistrate exercises such powers under the
Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008, on the other hand, the same power, to try cases for maintenance of
wives, children and parents under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is being exercised by the officers of Higher Judicial
Service cadre, i.e. Session Judge/ Additional Sessions Judge/ Additional District Judge, therefore,
the disparity still continues and if an order with respect to Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is passed by Sessions Judge/
Additional Sessions Judge, in that event, the affected party from either side has lost a valuable
remedy, which has not been provided under the Family Court Act, 1984, that an order passed by
Gram Nyayalaya is appealable or revisable, as the case may be, before the Court of Sessions Judge/
Additional Sessions Judge.