Judgment 1. The petitioners are the wife and son of one M.S. Mahesh. They have preferred this revision against the order passed by the V Addl. JMFC, (Jr.Dn.) Mysore, dismissing their execution petition No.255/2002 declining to enforce the decree passed in O.S.No.62/1996 in their favour against the respondents. 2. Thefacts relevant for consideration are: That petitioners 1 and 2 filed a suit in O.S.No.62/1996 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) contending that 1st petitioner married the 2nd respondent and through the wedlock she gave birth to a son named M.S. Manjunath. Despite such matrimony her husband S. Mahesh, who was living in the joint family with his father and other coparceners namely M.S. Shivashankar, Vijayshankar, Basavaraju and Bharathi, deprived comfort and consortium and failed to maintain her and her child. She was neglected and her sustenance was impossible. She therefore sought for a decree to direct the defendants to pay to her alimony at Rs.1,000/- per month. The original defendant Shivashankar died and was represented by the legal heirs namely Vijayashankar, Mahesh, Basavaraju and Bharathi. After contest the suit was decreed directing the defendants to pay to the revision petitioner and her son Rs.1000/- towards maintenance and as alimony. The revision petitioners having obtained a decree passed on 7.12.2001 filed Execution Petition No.2855/2002 to enforce the decree and to recover the alimony. But the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) dismissed the execution on the ground that the decree obtained by her was a nullity. To form such a opinion the executing court noticed that the petitioners undoubtedly claim to be wife and son of one Mahesh had sought for recovery of the maintenance by virtue of right germinating from marital relationship and as such action was against her husband and her in-law’s, namely the father-in-law, they come within definition of ‘Parties to the marriage’ and thus such a dispute had to be necessarily decided by the Family Court constituted under the Family Court’s Act 1998 and not by the Civil Court. As on the date the decree was passed Family Court was established in the district of Mysore, the suit had to be tried by the Family Court which was bestowed with the jurisdiction and Civil Court had lost jurisdiction. The relevant date being 25-05-1998. As on the date the decree was passed Family Court was established in the district of Mysore, the suit had to be tried by the Family Court which was bestowed with the jurisdiction and Civil Court had lost jurisdiction. The relevant date being 25-05-1998. Therefore, it held that as on the date the decree was passed on 7.12.2001 the Family Court was in existence and the decree was a nullity. 3. The learned counsel Smt. Prabha Murthy would contend that the District Judge and the Court concerned ought to have transferred the suit to the Family Court. Having not done so and having proceeded to pass a decree, the petitioners cannot be denied of the said relief. She pointed out that till a decree was passed even the defendants did not raise dispute with regard to jurisdiction and hence the suit as brought was maintainable. The Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) ought to have noticed that the Family Court was functioning and he had no jurisdiction but he proceeded with the suit. They were compelled to proceed with the case as the same was retained by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and hence, execution of such decree was tenable. 4. I have heard the learned counsel and examined the order. 5. It is necessary to observe that the question regarding the jurisdiction of the court has to be considered at the earliest. The questions relating to jurisdiction are: (1) Whether the Court has pecuniary jurisdiction? (2) Whether the Court has territorial jurisdiction or whether the Court has jurisdiction over the subject-matter in dispute? Thus, the question regarding jurisdiction has to be determined at the earliest keeping in mind the objections raised by the opponent. The opponent party cannot be allowed to raise questions regarding pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction at belated stage. But, when the question arises as to whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction over ‘subject matter’, it is incumbent upon the Court to decide the said issue irrespective of the time at which the question regarding jurisdiction is raised. The Apex Court in the decision reported in the case of Harshad Chiman Lal Modi V. D.L.F. Universal Ltd and Another reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 4446 observed: “28. We are unable to uphold the contention. The jurisdiction of a court may be classified into several categories. The Apex Court in the decision reported in the case of Harshad Chiman Lal Modi V. D.L.F. Universal Ltd and Another reported in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 4446 observed: “28. We are unable to uphold the contention. The jurisdiction of a court may be classified into several categories. The important categories are (i) Territorial or local jurisdiction; (ii) Pecuniary jurisdiction; and (iii) Jurisdiction over the subject-matter. So far as territorial and pecuniary jurisdictions are concerned, objection to such jurisdiction has to be taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in any case at or before settlement of issues. The law is well settled on the point that if such objection is not taken at the earliest, it cannot be allowed to be taken at a subsequent stage. Jurisdiction as to subject-matter, however, is totally distinct and stands on a different footing. Where a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit by reason of any limitation imposed by statute, charter or commission, it cannot take up the cause or matter. An order passed by a court having no jurisdiction is nullity.” 6. Besides, it is noticed that in Kiran Singh V. Chaman Paswan, (1955) 1 SCR 117 equivalent to AIR 1954 SC 340 the Apex Court held: “It is a fundamental principle well established that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction ………… strikes at the very authority of the court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties.” In the light of this observation of the Apex Court, let us now examine the legal position. Section 7 of the Family Courts Act bestows jurisdiction and reads thus: “7. A defect of jurisdiction ………… strikes at the very authority of the court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties.” In the light of this observation of the Apex Court, let us now examine the legal position. Section 7 of the Family Courts Act bestows jurisdiction and reads thus: “7. 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 or 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.” 7. Section8 deals with exclusion of jurisdiction of civil courts in pending suits or proceedings. It bars and ousts the jurisdiction of all Civil Courts from the date of the Act coming into force and also from the date on which the Family Court is constituted for the territory. It reads thus: “8. Exclusion of jurisdiction and pending proceedings – Where a Family Court has been established for any area, - (a) no district court or any subordinate civil court referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 7 shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of any suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the Explanation to that sub-section; (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); (c) every suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the Explanation to sub-section. (1) of Section 7 and every proceeding under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), - (i) which is pending immediately before the establishment of such Family Court before any district court or subordinate court referred to in that sub-section or, as the case may be, before any magistrate under the said Code; and (ii) which would have been required to be instituted or taken before or by such Family Court if, before the date on which such suit or proceeding was instituted or taken, this Act had come into force and such Family Court had been established, shall stand transferred to such Family Court on the date on which it is established.” 8. In the instant case the Family Court has been established and has become functional in the district of Mysore with effect from the 25.5.1998. In this view of the matter, the decree passed in O.S.No.62/1996 on 7.12.2001 is a decree passed by the Civil court without jurisdiction and decree is a nullity. The executing court has therefore rightly dismissed the execution petition. 9. Thus, taking into consideration all attending circumstances, it is difficult to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge and thus, the same is confirmed. 10. The executing court has therefore rightly dismissed the execution petition. 9. Thus, taking into consideration all attending circumstances, it is difficult to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge and thus, the same is confirmed. 10. Before parting, it is necessary to observe that even though the Civil Court had jurisdiction when the suit in O.S.No.62/1996 was instituted by the petitioners, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was excluded by virtue of Section 8 of the Family Court Act and consequently, on establishment of the Family Court Act for District of Mysore with effect from 25.05.1998, necessarily the suit had to be transferred to the said Family Court. Neither the learned District Judge of the District, nor the Civil Judge concerned have noticed this fact, as a result of which the bonafide legal pursuit of the petitioners has been frustrated. It is a matter of regret that despite clear mandate contained in Section 8 of the Family Court Act, the learned Civil Judge concerned has continued to try the suit, who by then had no jurisdiction over the subject matter. Non-transferring of the case of the Family Court as required under Section 8 and continuing to adjudicate the claim, has resulted in passing of a decree on 07.12.2001 and the petitioners could not realize the fruits of the decree as it, under law is a nullity. Consequent to such lapses on the part of the learned District Judge concerned in non-transferring the suit to the Family Court and the lapses on the part of the learned Civil Judge in continuing to try the suit while Family Court was functioning, has landed the petitioners in a serious predicament without their fault. 11. The petitioners are wife and son of M.S. Mahesh, the second defendant in the suit against whom petitioners had sought a decree for alimony for maintenance and also for share in immovable properties. 12. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Prabha Murthy rightly pointed out that the petitioners continued to prosecute the suit in right earnest to seek redressal, but all their actions have been annihilated by the erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by the Civil Judge concerned. Had the Court realized the far reaching consequences of such erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, the petitioners would not have been remediless as they are today. Had the Court realized the far reaching consequences of such erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, the petitioners would not have been remediless as they are today. They instituted the suit in the year 1996 and the decree has been passed in their favour on 07.12.2001. Yet they could not get any benefit of the said order, by which they were held entitled to maintenance. 13. Under these circumstances and having noticed that the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2001 is passed by V. Addl. I Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Mysore, in O.S.No.62/1996 after establishment of the Family Court and as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was ousted under Section 8, it is deemed necessary, in the facts and circumstances of this case, to exercise revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon the records of the proceedings in O.S.No.62/1996 on the file of V Addl. I Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Mysore, to examine the legality of the said judgment and decree. Such course of action is necessary as we have noticed there is clear inaction on the part of the Court concerned in a matter relating to transfer of cases after constitution of Family Court and resultant exercise of jurisdiction by the Civil Courts not vesting in it. 14. Hence, Registry is directed to register a suo moto Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2001 in O.S.No.62/1996 on the file of V Addl. I Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Mysore, and to place the same before the Bench for consideration. 15. In the result for the reasons discussed, the order passed in Execution No.255/2002 dated 10.03.2003 on the file of V Addl. I Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Mysore, is confirmed and this Revision stands disposed of with the observation as made above. In the circumstances, no order as to costs.