The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has ruled that a Gram Nyayalaya, presided over by an officer of the rank of Civil Judge (Junior Division), is not competent to review, modify, or entertain execution proceedings against orders passed by a Family Court Judge of the Higher Judicial Service (HJS) cadre.
The Court, presided over by Justice Harvir Singh, held that allowing such an arrangement leads to “disparity, judicial impropriety and overlapping in exercising jurisdiction” over the same subject matter by officers of different ranks in the judicial hierarchy.
The primary legal question before the Court was whether a Gram Nyayalaya has the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon applications under Sections 127 and 128 of the Cr.PC (relating to modification and execution of maintenance) when the original maintenance order was passed by a Principal Judge or Additional Principal Judge of a Family Court—officers belonging to the Higher Judicial Service.
The Court concluded that while Gram Nyayalayas have jurisdiction over maintenance matters under the Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008, they cannot exercise power “over and above” orders passed by higher-ranking HJS officers of the Family Court.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated from a maintenance order dated March 6, 2019, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bijnor, directing the petitioner, Amit Kumar Rana, to pay ₹3,000 per month to his wife (Respondent No. 2) under Section 125 Cr.PC.
Subsequently, the petitioner moved a revision in the High Court, which stayed the arrears but directed the continuation of monthly payments. Later, the petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Application (No. 375 of 2021) under Section 127 Cr.PC for the recall of the maintenance order, alleging that his wife had remarried on January 26, 2020.
While this application was pending before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bijnor, all maintenance cases were transferred to the newly created Gram Nyayalaya, Dhampur, following administrative orders issued by the District Judge in February 2024. Consequently, the Gram Nyayalaya passed orders on October 1, 2024, and March 25, 2025, directing the petitioner to comply with the original 2019 order and issuing a recovery warrant.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the Petitioner: The petitioner’s counsel argued that a Gram Nyayalaya, headed by a Civil Judge (Junior Division), is not competent to adjudicate upon a matter already decided by a Family Court Judge, who is an officer of the Higher Judicial Service. He contended that Sections 7(2) and 8(b) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, exclude the jurisdiction of a Magistrate where a Family Court exists. He further submitted that the concurrent jurisdiction created by the Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008, and the Family Courts Act, 1984, led to an “anomaly within the cadre of the District Courts.”
Counsel for Respondent No. 2: The respondent argued that the jurisdiction was conferred upon the Gram Nyayalaya by the legislature through the Gram Nyayalaya Act, 2008, which is a separate statute. They contended that since the jurisdiction was legally transferred, the orders passed by the Gram Nyayalaya were in accordance with the law and the specific provisions of the First Schedule of the Act.
Court’s Analysis
The Court analyzed the hierarchy of judicial officers and the conflicting provisions of the two Acts. It observed that the Family Court is comprised of HJS cadre officers, whereas the Gram Nyayalaya is headed by the rank of Civil Judge (Junior Division).
The Court noted:
“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.”
Referring to the disparity, the Court remarked:
“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… by two different judicial officers in the hierarchy.”
The Court further observed that while a High Court circular dated December 16, 2021, suggested that the Gram Nyayalaya Act has an overriding effect, it did not address the loss of a “valuable remedy.” An order passed by a Gram Nyayalaya is appealable/revisable before the Sessions Judge, but if a Sessions Judge (acting as Family Court) passes the order, the party loses that intermediate level of remedy.
The Decision
The High Court quashed the orders dated October 1, 2024, and March 25, 2025, passed by the Gram Nyayalaya, Dhampur. The Court issued the following directions:
- Quashing of Orders: The impugned orders were set aside as they were “inconsistent with the Family Court Act.”
- Continuity of Original Order: The original maintenance order dated March 6, 2019, remains in force until the date the respondent remarried.
- Restriction on Transfers: Cases filed before Family Courts can only be transferred to Gram Nyayalaya if no order deciding the rights of the parties (such as interim maintenance) has been passed, and provided the order is not revisable or appealable before a higher court.
- Pending Cases: It was specifically held that “cases pending before the Family Courts to be decided under Sections 126(2), 127 and 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973… cannot be transferred to Gram Nyayalaya.”
The petition was disposed of with the observation that parties may seek remedies within the framework of the Family Court scheme.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Amit Kumar Rana v. State of U.P. and another
- Case No.: MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 9426 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Harvir Singh
- Date of Judgment: April 10, 2026
