ORDER 1. This Civil Revision has been preferred to challenge the impugned order dated 25.1.08 passed by the Court of VII Additional District Judge, Gwalior, allowing thereby an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC of the non-applicant. 2. Revisionist got married to non-applicant on 4.2.95 at village Lona, District Jalaun (UP). They resided together at Station Road, Gohad Chauraha, Dist. Bhind (MP) up to 6.8.05. Revisionist submitted an application for dissolution of marriage by divorce on ground under section 13 (1) (a) and (b) of Hindu Marriage Act, on 8.6.99 wherein address of the non-applicant was shown as 34, Gandhi Nagar, Lashkar, Gwalior. Process Server submitted a report that the non-applicant was not residing at the said address. Similarly, the notice sent by registered post came back un-served on account of incomplete address. Thereafter, service was got effected under Order V Rule 17 CPC and ex-parte decree for dissolution of marriage by divorce in favour of the revisionist was passed on 14.1.2000. Non-applicant came to know about it on 4.2.2006 during the proceedings before the Court of Sessions Judge, Jalaun, Camp Orai. Non-applicant, thereafter submitted an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on 14.2.2006 alongwith an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act mainly with the allegations that her address was wrongly shown as 34, Gandhi Nagar, Lashkar, Gwalior. There was a clear report of the process server that there was no residence of non-applicant at the said address. Notice issued by registered post came back un-served on account of incomplete address. Thereafter, service was got effected by way of affixation under Order V Rule 17 CPC. It is stated that the non-applicant used to reside with the applicant himself which was suppressed. Revisionist used to insist fm dowry which could not be accepted, therefore, the non-applicant was beaten badly and was brought to her father in an unconscious condition by the revisionist as well as her brother-in-law Gyanveer Sikarwar. She was, thus, left at her father's place in Orai on 7.8.05. A complaint was lodged by the non-applicant with the Police Station Jalaun. After due investigation, case was registered against the revisionist and challan has already been submitted in the Court. Revisionist and other co-accused were served with the notices. Thereafter, the revisionist submitted a Criminal Revision before the Court of Sessions Judge; Jalaun, Camp at Orai which was fixed to 4.2.2006. After due investigation, case was registered against the revisionist and challan has already been submitted in the Court. Revisionist and other co-accused were served with the notices. Thereafter, the revisionist submitted a Criminal Revision before the Court of Sessions Judge; Jalaun, Camp at Orai which was fixed to 4.2.2006. When the non-applicant appeared before the said Court she came to know, for the first time, that an exparte judgment and decree for divorce has been obtained by the revisionist on 14.1.2000. Thereafter, the non-applicant contacted her lawyer who after due inspection of the record of case no. 108A199 MHA submitted an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree. Another application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was also submitted for condo-nation of delay. 3. Revisionist submitted his replies refuting thereby the contentions made in the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC as well as application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. 4. Learned Trial Judge vide its order dated 5.9.2006 allowed the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act and condoned the delay. Thereafter, the learned trial Judge allowed the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC by the impugned order dated 25.1.2008 setting aside thereby the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 14.1.2000. Hence, the present revision is submitted. 5. Shri Chaturvedi and Shri Gupta, learned counsel, made their submissions in support of their respective stands. 6. Civil Suit No.108A/99 HMA was instituted by the revisionist against the non-applicant for dissolution of marriage by divorce on ground under section 13 (1) (a) and (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in which address of the non-applicant was given as House No. 34, Gandhi Nagar, Gwalior. Learned trial Judge, on the basis of evidence on record, found that the notice issued to the non-applicant in ordinary manner came back with an endorsement that the house No. 34 belonged to one "Sharma". Process Server had asked for providing block number of Gandhi Nagar in order to ascertain the house. Similarly, notice issued by registered post came back un-served with an endorsement on account of incomplete address. Revisionist submitted an application under Order V Rule 17 whereupon it was directed on 1.7.99 by the trial Court that notice be issued to the non-applicant in ordinary manner. Similarly, notice issued by registered post came back un-served with an endorsement on account of incomplete address. Revisionist submitted an application under Order V Rule 17 whereupon it was directed on 1.7.99 by the trial Court that notice be issued to the non-applicant in ordinary manner. In case if she does not accept the notice, the same may be effected by affixation. On 21.8.99, the process-server put a note that owner of the property informed him that the non-applicant was not available. Thereafter, the notice was affixed on the said house. Learned Trial Judge observed that the process server was directed to affix the notice only in case of refusal on the part of the non-applicant to receive the summons. Since non-applicant was not available and there was no refusal on her part, it is observed by the learned trial Judge that notice could not have been effected in pursuance of the order dated 1.7.99. Accordingly, it is held that there was no due service on the non-applicant of the summons. It is further observed that the revisionist failed to adduce the evidence to the effect that non-applicant was in fact residing at 34, Gandhi Nagar, Lashkar, Gwalior and was aware of the suit for divorce. This being so, ex-parte, proceedings drawn on 1.7.99 against the non-applicant have been set-aside and consequently ex-parte judgment and decree dated 14.1.2000 have also been set aside. Learned counsel for the revisionist failed to point out consideration of any inadmissible evidence or non-consideration of any material piece of evidence so as to warrant interference in the findings of facts recorded duly by the learned trial Judge on the basis of material on record. This being so, findings returned by the learned trial Court are hereby affirmed. 7. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the Court of VII Additional District Judge, Gwalior, has no jurisdiction to decide the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC in view of the establishment of the Family Courts with effect from the year 2002. He contended that in view of section 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, MJC No. 6/06 ought to have been transferred to the Family Court and the impugned order, therefore, being without jurisdiction, is unsustainable in law. 8. He contended that in view of section 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, MJC No. 6/06 ought to have been transferred to the Family Court and the impugned order, therefore, being without jurisdiction, is unsustainable in law. 8. The Family Courts Act, 1984, is made applicable in the State of Madhya Pradesh with effect from 14th September, 1984. Family Courts at Gwalior were set up, according to the learned counsel for the revisionist, in the year 2002. Civil Suit No.108A/99 HMA was instituted by the revisionist for a decree of divorce by dissolution by marriage which was decreed ex-parte on 14.1.2000 by the Court of VII Additional District Judge, Gwalior. Thus, obviously, Family Courts were not established until grant of ex-parte decree of divorce. Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the aforesaid judgment and decree was submitted on 14.2.2006 in the Court of VII Additional District Judge, Gwalior which passed the ex-parte judgment and decree. At this juncture, I feel it proper to reproduce section 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. Section 7 speaks about jurisdiction whereas section 8 speaks about exclusion of jurisdiction and pending proceedings which are as follow: "7. Jurisdiction - (1) Subject to the other provision 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 for 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 for 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. 8. 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 subsection (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 power 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 subsection 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. Perusal of section 8 makes it clear that after the establishment of Family Court, District Court or any subordinate Court ceased to have jurisdiction in respect of any suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the explanation to section 7 (1) of the Family Court Act. This being so, revisionist is required to establish that the proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 CPC arising from an exparte judgments and decree which was passed by the VII Additional District Judge, Gwalior, before establishment of Family Court are covered by the explanation to section 7 (1) (supra). 9. Faced with this, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that such proceedings would be covered by clause (b) and (d) of the explanation. 9. Faced with this, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that such proceedings would be covered by clause (b) and (d) of the explanation. At the cost of repetition, this Court may, first, deal with clauses (b) and (d) which are reproduced below: "(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) XXX (d) a suit or proceeding for an order or injunction in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship" On perusal of the aforesaid two provisions, it is clear that the suit or proceedings referred to in clause (b) must be for declaration as to the validity of a marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person. If we examine the nature of the proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, it is clear that the non applicant did not seek any declaration as to the validity of their marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person. Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was submitted for getting the ex-parte judgment and decree set asise on account of absence of due service. 10. Dominant nature of the suit or proceedings in order to fall the same within the ambit of clause (b) must be a declaration about the validity of a marriage or about matrimonial status. For deciding an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, the trial Court was not required to go into the question pf validity of marriage or into the question of matrimonial status of any of the parties. It was obliged to go merely into the question of validity or effectively of service of summons on the non-applicant. 11. As regard clause (d), purpose of the suit or proceedings must be to seek an order or injunction in the circumstances arising out of a marital relationship. For deciding application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, the marital relationship of the non-applicant and the revisionist was immaterial. Only question before the Trial Court while passing an order under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was about the validity of the service of summons. For deciding application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, the marital relationship of the non-applicant and the revisionist was immaterial. Only question before the Trial Court while passing an order under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was about the validity of the service of summons. Marital relationship between the parties had no role in the proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 CPC because the same will not have any bearing on the question of valid and effective service of summons on the non-applicant against whom ex-parte judgment and decree for divorce was passed by the learned trial Court. If the Court, in such proceedings, finds that there was no valid and effective service of summons on the defendant, neither existence of marital relationship nor absence thereof would have made an impact on such finding. Since the ex-parte judgment and decree was passed by the VII Additional District Judge, Gwalior, before establishment of the Family Court, application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC submitted prior to establishment of Family Courts was not required to be transferred and the same did not stand transferred to the Family Court by virtue of section 8 of the Family Courts Act. 12. Consequently, it is held that no interference is warranted in the impugned order. Civil Revision being devoid of substance is hereby dismissed. Revisionist would bear the cost of non-applicant and lawyer's fee to the tune of Rs.3,000/-, if pre-certified. -