R. V. VASANTHA KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the petitioner's counsel on merits even though the matter was listed in the orders list since notice issued to respondent has been served and he has remained absent and unrepresented. ( 2 ) THIS Civil Petition is directed against an order, dated 6-8-1992 passed inmiscellaneous Proceedings No. 404 of 1992 filed under Section 24 of the Code of civil Procedure before the Court of the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City seeking for transfer of G. W. C. Proceedings No. 143 of 1981 which was pending on the file of the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, wherein the court on 11-12-1986 had passed an order in respect of custody of minor child born out of wedlock between one Md. Hafeez (the petitioner in G and WC. 143 of 1981) and javeeda Hafeez (the respondent in G and WC 143 of 1981 ). ( 3 ) THE operative portion of the order reads:-"the petition is dismissed. The respondent shall continue to retain custody of minor Jauber Ha feez but the minor shall not be removed from the jurisdiction of this court without the prior permission in writing of the court. The petitioner is permitted to see the child and remain with the child in the school once a month in the presence of Head Mistress or class teacher on any working day prior to, after or during any break of interval in the school hours for not more than 15 minutes after giving at least a clear 7 days notice to the respondent of his intention to see the child and mentioning in the said notice the date and time of his visit to the school for seeing the child. Both parties to bear their own costs. "as on the date, the aforesaid order was passed, the Family Courts Act, 1984 (66 of 1984) had not come into force in the State of Karnataka. It is to be noted that in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Family courts Act, 1984 (66 of 1984) the Central Government appointed 25-5-1987 as the date on which the said Act having come into force in the State of Karnataka. Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') relates to jurisdictional issue. Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') relates to jurisdictional issue. Section 7 envisages triable matter coming within the purview of the family Court and as such the Family Court alone is vested with jurisdiction to deal with matters coming under clauses (a) to (g) of the Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Act and having in view of the scope and object of the Act, exclusive jurisdiction is conferred on the Family Court and to that extent, the powers of the civil courts are divested. Venkatachala, J. , as he then was sitting in Division Bench, in the case reported in Ashraya v Nil, ILR 1990 Karnataka 1349 has in detail discussed the object, purpose and ambit of the Family Courts Act. Paras 4, 5, 6 and 7 read:- para 4: Law Commission of India ("the Law Commission") in its Fifty-fourth report on the Code forwarded to Government of India in the year 1973, while recommending introduction of a new Order, Order XXXIX-A, into the Code to deal with matters relating to family, gave reasons therefor in Chapter 32-A of that Report thus: 32-A. 2. In the administration of justice in disputes relating to the family, one has to keep in mind the human relationship with which one is dealing. The objective of a family counselling, as a method of achieving the ultimate object of preservation of the family, is to be kept in the forefront. 32-A. 3. Litigation concerning or involving affairs of the family, therefore, requires a special approach, in view of the serious emotional aspects involved. For this sensitive area of personal relationship, our ordinary judicial procedure is not ideally suited. As Sir Garfield Barwick (then Attorney-General of Australia), said in the debates on the Matrimonial Clauses Bill, 1959, the Judge not unnaturally feels reticent about intruding into the human relationship of those who come before him; and the parties themselves so often enter into a conspiracy of silence, where their innermost secrets are concerned. As Sir Garfield Barwick (then Attorney-General of Australia), said in the debates on the Matrimonial Clauses Bill, 1959, the Judge not unnaturally feels reticent about intruding into the human relationship of those who come before him; and the parties themselves so often enter into a conspiracy of silence, where their innermost secrets are concerned. 32-A. 4: It is now being increasingly realised that; (A) as far as possible, an integrated broad-based service to families in trouble, should become a part of the court system; (b) the existing court structure should be so organised that one single court should deal with the problem of preserving the families; and (c) the conventional procedure dominated by the adversary system may not be appropriate for disputes concerning the family. 32-A. 5. Many of these matters are outside the scope of this Report; moreover, it will require considerable time and effort to re-mould the legal system to make it an effective instrument for dealing with them. Nevertheless, it is felt that so far as the Code of Civil Procedure is concerned, it may be desirable to have special provisions on some matters, provisions which highlight the need for adopting a different approach, where matters concerning the family are at issue, including the need for efforts to bring about an amicable settlement" para 5. Then the Law Commission, in its Fifty-ninth Report on Hindu marriage Act and Special Marriage Act, forwarded to Government of India in the year 1974, expressed its view on the need of establishment of Family Courts to deal with matters concerning the family by adoption of a human approach thus:-"in our Report on the Code of Civil Procedure, we have had occasion to emphasise that in dealing with disputes concerning the family, the court ought to adopt a human approach an approach radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings, and that the court should make reasonable efforts at settlement before commencement of the trial. In our view, it is essential that such approach should be adopted in dealing with matrimonial disputes. We would suggest that in due course, states should think of establishing Family Courts, with Presiding Officers who will be well qualified in law, no doubt, but who will be trained to deal with such dispute in a human way, and to such courts all disputes concerning (he family should be referred. We would suggest that in due course, states should think of establishing Family Courts, with Presiding Officers who will be well qualified in law, no doubt, but who will be trained to deal with such dispute in a human way, and to such courts all disputes concerning (he family should be referred. What we have said in our Report on the Code of Civil Procedure should be treated as a part of the present Report also,"para 6: Thereafter, in the year 1984, when the Bill was introduced in parliament for being passed as an Act, Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying that Bill refers to the futility of the special procedure (Order XXXII-A) required to be adopted by ordinary courts in dealing with family matters and the need for establishment of Family Courts thus:-"several associations of women, other organisations and individuals have urged, from time to time, that Family Courts be set up for the settlement of family disputes, where emphasis should be laid on conciliation and achieving socially desirable results and adherence to rigid rules of procedure and evidence should be eliminated. The Law Commission in its 59th Report (1974) had also stressed that in dealing with disputes concerning the family the court ought to adopt an approach radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings and that it should make reasonable efforts at settlement before the commencement of the trial. The Code of Civil Procedure was amended in 1976 to provide for a special procedure to be adopted in suits or proceedings relating to matters concerning the family. However, not much use has been made by the courts in adopting this conciliatory procedure and the courts continue to deal with family disputes in the same manner as other civil matters and the same adversary approach prevails. The need was, therefore, felt, in the public interest, to establish Family Courts for speedy settlement of family disputes. "para 7: Salient aspects of the Act, which has been enacted pursuant to the said bill, are reflected in the following provisions: Section 3, which provides for establishment of Family Courts, requires the State Government concerned to establish Family Courts not merely for areas in its State covered by cities and towns, but also for all other areas of the State needing the establishment of such courts. Section 4, which provides for selection of persons for appointment as judges of Family Courts, requires that every endeavour shall be made to ensure that persons committed to the need to protect and preserve the institution of marriage and to promote the welfare of the children and qualified by reason of their expertise to promote the settlement of disputes by conciliation and counselling, are selected and preference shall be given to women. Section 5 contains the provision which enables the Family Court to function with the association of institutions or organisations engaged in social welfare or the persons working in the field of social welfare, with persons working in the field of social welfare, with a view to effectively exercise its jurisdiction. Section 6 contains the provision which enables the Family Court to obtain assistance in its functioning from counsellors, Officers and employees. While Section 7 enumerates the categories of matters respecting which Family Court shall have and exercise jurisdiction, Section 8 not merely excludes the jurisdiction of other courts respecting matters categorised under Section 7, but also declares that if any such categorised matter was pending before other court, the same shall stand transferred to Family Court on its establishment in the concerned area. Section 9 imposes a duty on the Family Court to make all efforts in bringing about an amicable settlement of disputes between the parties before it. Sub-section (3) of section 10, which empowers the Family Court to evolve its own procedure in bringing about settlement of matters before it and finding the truth of the disputed facts in matters before it, frees it from the shackles of rigid rules of procedure by which ordinary courts are bound. So also, Section 14, which empowers the Family Court to receive as evidence any report, statement, document, information or matter for effectively deciding the dispute before it, frees it from the shackles of rigorous rules of evidence as to relevancy or admissibility of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, by which ordinary courts are bound. Besides, while Section 15 relieves the Family Court of the burden of recording evidence of witnesses at length by permitting it to make a memorandum of the substance of such evidence, Section 16 permits the family Court to receive evidence of normal character given by affidavit. Besides, while Section 15 relieves the Family Court of the burden of recording evidence of witnesses at length by permitting it to make a memorandum of the substance of such evidence, Section 16 permits the family Court to receive evidence of normal character given by affidavit. Section 18 not merely declares that the judgments and decrees of the Family Court to have the same force and effect as that of civil court, but empowers the Family court to execute its judgments and decrees or orders as Civil or Magistrate courts execute them. Section 19 while provides for filing of an appeal against every judgment or order of the Family Court before the High Court and such appeal being heard by a Bench consisting of two or more Judges, expressly prohibits the filing of an appeal or revision against any interlocutory order made by the Family Court. Section 25 takes care to declare the overriding effect of the act on matters covered by its provisions notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other law in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any other law. From legislative history, it is quite clear that Legislature has vested exclusive jurisdiction in the Family Court with regard to certain matters and the civil court is not competent to decide such questions. The Legislature in its wisdom to achieve the object under the Act decided to provide that all such questions pending before any other court or authority should be decided by the Family Court. It is to be stated that constitution of Family Court and conferment of exclusive jurisdiction does not result in setting at naught of any binding decision of a competent court. So what is sought to be achieved by the conferment of powers on the Family Court in respect of the matters categorised under Section 7 is ouster of civil court's jurisdiction subsequent to the Act coming into force. What meaning has to be attached in respect of pending matters is that there being no final decision of the court which means decision of the court which means decision of the original court having not attained finality. Section 8 of the Act envisages the statutory transfer of all the matters pending consideration before the civil courts. What meaning has to be attached in respect of pending matters is that there being no final decision of the court which means decision of the court which means decision of the original court having not attained finality. Section 8 of the Act envisages the statutory transfer of all the matters pending consideration before the civil courts. By virtue of Section 8 of the Act, all the proceedings which have not reached finality should be construed as pending matters and ipso facto they get statutorily transferred. ( 4 ) THE remedy that is open to the parties in the courts is to move the Family Courtand thereafter the Family Court seized of the matter may call for the records pertaining to the causes that had not reached finality by the orders of the civil courts before the Family Court was constituted. It is made clear that parties need not make any application before the civil courts seeking either withdrawal or transfer of the same to the Family Court, in the event either of the parties intend to seek further reliefs arising out of the orders passed by civil courts where no finality had been reached. ( 5 ) FOR making a right of remedy claimed by the parties just and meaningful, asalso legally and factually in accordance with the current realities, the Family Court must take cautious cognizance of events and developments subsequent to institution of proceedings in the original causes before the Family Courts Act came into force. ( 6 ) THE impugned order passed by the civil court in Miscellaneous 404 of 1992 on6-8-1992 reads:-"heard. This Court has no jurisdiction after the Family Court came into being at Bangalore, Hence, return the I. A. to the petitioner for presentation in proper court. If the Family Court calls for records then in that case the file will be sent to family Court. "ex facie, there is no error of jurisdiction in the order impugned. ( 7 ) IT is made clear that the Family Court alone has jurisdiction to deal with theproceedings initiated by the petitioner. In the light of the observations made above, the petitioner is at liberty to move the Family Court As such, this Civil Petition does not merit any consideration and the same is dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .