JUDGMENT: Amareshwar Sahay, J.-The petitioner has raised a question, regarding the jurisdiction of a Family Court, which has been set up under the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred as Act of 1984) to deal with an application under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights under Divorce) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred as Muslim Women Divorce Act of 1986). 2. The facts in short, giving rise to this application are that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 8.6.1978, according to Muslim rights and custom at Jamshedpur. The petitioner divorced the respondent no. 2, on 8.9.2001. 3. The respondentno.2, filed an application against the petitioner under Sections 3 & 4 of the Divorce Act, 1986 before the Family Court at Jamshedpur being Misc. Case No. 325 of 2001, for return of the amount of MAHR and the properties and also for grant of maintenance. 4. The petitioner by filing an application before the Family Court, challenged the jurisdiction of the said Court, stating therein that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the said application filed by the Respondent no. 2, because after coming into force of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights under Divorce) Act, 1986, it is only a Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class has the jurisdiction to entertain such application and not the Family Court. 5. The Principal Judge, Family Court Jamshedpur, by order dated 11.9.2002, held that the family Court has got jurisdiction to decide the dispute with regard to maintenance and Dower (MAHR) and rejected the petition of the petitioner challenging the jurisdiction of the Court. 6. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of th'3 Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in this application by raising the same very question which was raised before the Family Court, challenging the jurisdiction of the Family Court to entertain and deal with the petition under Sections 3 & 4 of the Muslim Women Divorce Act, 1986. 7. 6. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of th'3 Principal Judge, Family Court, Jamshedpur in this application by raising the same very question which was raised before the Family Court, challenging the jurisdiction of the Family Court to entertain and deal with the petition under Sections 3 & 4 of the Muslim Women Divorce Act, 1986. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after enactment of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which is a Special Act, now it is only a Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class who has got the jurisdiction to entertain and deal with the application of a divorced Muslim Woman filed under Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act and, therefore, a Family Court has got no jurisdiction to entertain any such application under Sections 3 & 4 of the Divorce Act of 1986. 8. Therefore, the short point which has to be decided in this case is as to whether a Family Court has any jurisdiction to entertain an application under Sections 3 and 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 by a divorced Muslim Woman or not? 9. To decide the aforesaid question, it is necessary to notice the relevant provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and the relevant provisions of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 reads as follows : "Jurisdiction-( 1 ) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall- (a) have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any district Court or any subordinate civil Court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the Explanation; and (b) be deemed, for the purposes of exercising such jurisdiction under such law, to be a district Court or, as the case may be, such subordinate civil Court for the area to which the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends. Explanation.- The suits and proceedings referred to in this sub-section are suits and proceedings of the following nature, namely: (a) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage for a decree of nullity of marriage (declaring the marriage to be null and void or, as the case may be, annulling the marriage) or restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage; (b) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person; (c) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them; (d) a suit or proceeding for an order or injunction in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship; (e) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the legitimacy of any person; (f) a suit or proceeding for maintenance; (g) a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor. (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. 10. 10. Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 reads as under:- "Mahr or other properties of Muslim woman to be given to her at the time of divorce.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, divorced woman shall be entitled to- (a) a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid to her within the iddat period by her former husband; (b) where she herself maintains the children born to her before or after her divorce, a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to be made and paid by her former husband for a period of two years from the respective dates of birth of such children; (c) an amount equal to the sum of mahr or dower agreed to be paid to her at the time of her marriage or at any time thereafter according to Muslim law; and (d) all the properties given to her before or at the time of marriage or after the marriage by her relatives or friends or the husband or any relatives of the husband or his friends. (2) Where a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance or the amount of mahr or dower due has not been made or paid or the properties referred to in clause (d) of sub-section (1) have not been delivered to a divorced woman on her divorce, she or anyone duly authorised by her may, on her behalf, make an application to a Magistrate for an order for payment of such provision and maintenance, mahror dower or the delivery of properties, as the case may be. (3) Where an application has been made under sub-section (2) by a divorced woman, the Magistrate may, if he is satisfied that- (a) her husband having sufficient means, has failed or neglected to make or pay her within the iddat period a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance for her and the children; or (b) the amount equal to the sum of mahr or dower has not been paid or that the properties referred to in clause (d) of sub-section (1) have not been delivered to her, make an order, within one month of the date of the filing of the application, directing her former husband to pay such reasonable and fair provision and maintenance to the divorced woman as he may determine as fit and proper having regard to the needs of the divorced woman, the standard of life enjoyed by her during her marriage and the means of her former husband or, as the case may be, for the payment of such mahr or dower or the delivery of such properties referred to in clause (d) of sub-section (1) to the divorced woman: Provided that if the Magistrate finds it impracticable to dispose of the application within the said period, he may, for reasons to be recorded by him, dispose of the application after the said period. (4) If any person against whom an order has been made under sub-section (3) fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, the Magistrate may issue a warrant for levying the amount of maintenance or mahr or dower due in the manner provided for levying fines under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and may sentence such person, for the whole or part of any amount remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or until payment if sooner made, subject to such person being heard in defence and the said sentence being imposed according to the provisions of the said Code. 11. Section 7(1)(a) envisages that the Family Court can exercise jurisdiction exercisable by any district court or any subordinate civil court in respect of suits and proceedings. 11. Section 7(1)(a) envisages that the Family Court can exercise jurisdiction exercisable by any district court or any subordinate civil court in respect of suits and proceedings. Similarly Clause (a) of Subsection 2 envisages that Family court shall have and exercise jurisdiction exercisable by a Judicial Magistrate, First Class or Family court in regard to Chapter IX, Cr.P.C. An application under Section 3 of the Muslim Women Divorce Act, 1986 cannot be said to be covered by Section 7 of Subsection 1 of the said provision which has application only to a suit or proceeding which is in the nature of as mentioned in Clauses (a) to (g) of the Explanation. 12. An application under Section 3 of the Muslim Women Divorce Act, 1986 is neither a suit nor a proceeding nor is a matter adjudicable by the civil Court. 13. The Family Courts Act was enacted in the year 1984, whereas, the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, was enacted in the year 1986 i.e. subsequent to the Family Courts Act, 1984. Section 3 of the Muslim Women Act, 1986 quoted above begins with a nonobstante clause. The non-obstante clause states:- "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being enforced, a divorced woman shall be entitled to (a). ....(b)......" This makes the provision contained in the said Section complete in itself. It is not dependent on any other Act for its enforcement. Therefore, the provisions as contained in Muslim Women Divorce Act, 1986 has overriding effect over the earlier enactments including the Family Courts Act, 1984. 14. Identical question as raised in this application came before the Allahabad High Court for consideration before a Division Bench in the case of• Amjum Hasan Siddiqui vs. Smt. Salma B reported in (A.I.A. 1992 Allahabad 322). The Division Bench held that the Family Court was not competent to deal with the petition under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 for want of jurisdiction. The Division Bench held that the Family Court was not competent to deal with the petition under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 for want of jurisdiction. Relying on 'the decision of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court as aforesaid, a Division Bench of Kerala High Court in the case of Edavalah Avaran Koya vs. Kunnoth Mariyam reported in [Criminal Law Journal 1993 (1) 1118] held that the jurisdiction of the First Class Magistrate under the Muslim Women Act, 1986 is not in any way effected by the Family Courts Act, 1984 and that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 has overriding effect over the Family Courts Act, 1984. 15. Therefore, my view is supported by the aforesaid two decisions of Allahabad High Court in the case of Amjum Hasan Siddiqui (supra) and also of the Kerala High Court in the case of Edavalah Avaran Koya (supra). 16. Accordingly, I hold that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to entertain or deal with an application under Section 3 and 4 of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. 17. This application is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order passed by the Family Court, Jamshedpur is hereby set aside. No Costs.