M.P. GANGADHARAN AND ANR. versus STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 649 · Decided: 12-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

M.P. GANGADHARAN AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. 
MAY 12, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.] 
Family Courts Act, 1984: Sections 3(/)(a), 7, II, 20 and 21. 
Family Court-Shifting of-From one place to another-Competent 
Authority to order the shifting-State Government established a Family 
Court at a certain place in the year 1999 in a tenanted premises-The litigant 
public, the Court staff and others concerned were facing difficulties in 
attending the said Court-The Bar Association of the District submitted a 
representation seeking the shifting of the Family Court from that place to 
another-The District Judge, in his report, pointed out various deficiencies 
and lack of infrastructure at that place-The High Court recommended to 
the State Government to accord sanction for shifting of the Family Court 
from that place to the District HQ--Government Order directing the shifting 
of the Family Court from that place to the District HQ issued-High Court 
dismissed the writ petition filed for quashing the said Government Order-
Correctness of-Held: The power to shift a court from one place to another 
involves a jurisdictional question-The State Government exercised the said· 
jurisdiction in consultation with the High Court-There is no reason why a 
Family Court established at a place having jurisdiction over an area 
including more than one town or village cannot be shifted from one place 
to another within that area-The present building is not suitable so as to 
meet the requirements of the litigants-Hence, Family Court rightly shifted 
from its existing place to another-General Clauses Act, 1897, S. 21-
Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 235 and 236. 
Words & Phrases: 
"Consultation"-Meaning of-In the context of S. 3 of the Family 
Courts Act, 1984. 
Doctrines: 
"Doctrine of Proportionality"-Explained 
649 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
650 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
The State Government established a Family Court at a certain 
place in the year 1999 in a tenanted premises. The litigant public, the 
Court staff and others concerned were facing difficulties in attending 
the said Court. Therefore, the Bar Association of the District submitted 
a representation seeking the shifting of the Family Court from that 
place to another. The District Judge, in his report, pointed out various 
deficiencies and lack a infrastructure at that place. The High Court 
adopted a resolution to recommend to the State Government to accord 
sanction for shifting of the Family Court from that place to the Civil 
Station at the District HQ. The State Government issued a Government 
Order directing the shifting of the Family Court from that place to the 
District HQ. 
Being aggrieved the appellant filed a writ petition for quashing the 
said Government Order for shifting the Court, which was dismissed. 
Hence the appeal. 
The following question arose before the Court: 
Whether the State Government or the High Court would have 
authority to direct the shifting of a Family Court to another area 
once it is established in terms of Section 3(lj(a) of the Family 
Courts Act, 1984? 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. Section 3(l)(a) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 operate 
in two different fields. Whereas in the area which would attract Clause 
(a), the State is bound to establish a Family Court; over areas which 
are not covered by Clause (a), the State has a discretion to establish or 
not to establish a Family Court. In the case of the former, the State may 
not have any power to shift the Family Court from the city or town 
whose population exceeds one million; but there is no reason why a 
Family Court established at a place having jurisdiction over an area 
including more than one town or village cannot be shifted from one 
place to another within that area. (657-C, DJ 
2. In terms of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 
(corresponding to the relevant provisions in Interpretation and General 
H Clauses Act, 1925), the power to issue would include the power to 
• 
M.P. GANGADHARAN v. STATE 
651 
amend, vary or rescind, notifications and orders. If a notification could 
be issued establishing a Family Court at a certain place there is ~o 
reason why another notification cannot be issued by the State to shift 
the said Court to another place but within the same area of the Family 
Court. In terms of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, the State 
Government will indisputabl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.