Family Courts Lack Jurisdiction To Transfer Cases Inter-Se Under Section 24 CPC: Rajasthan High Court

"Family Court while exercising judicial power and jurisdiction, cannot travel beyond the jurisdiction entrusted by virtue of Section 7 of Family Courts Act." Rajasthan High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a Family Court lacks the jurisdiction to transfer matrimonial cases to another Family Court under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sudesh Bansal and Justice Anil Kumar Upman observed that this power of transfer is an exclusive domain of the High Court, firmly stating that "power of transfer has not been conferred in the Family Court by their special statute."

The matter reached the Division Bench as a Civil Reference under Section 113 of the CPC. The judge of Family Court No. 1 in Bharatpur had transferred four pending matrimonial cases to Family Court No. 2 within the same district, relying on a 2017 general directive by a Single Judge of the High Court. Doubting the validity of this transfer, the judge of Family Court No. 2 sought formal guidance from the High Court regarding the legal competence of a Family Court to pass such an order.

The primary question before the court was whether the general power of transfer conferred upon the High Court or the District Court under Section 24 of the CPC can be lawfully exercised by a Family Court to transfer cases within the same district. The court was also called upon to determine whether a Single Judge of the High Court could judicially vest such transfer powers in Family Courts, and whether the 2017 Single Judge order constituted a binding judicial precedent.

Special Statute Prevails Over General Law

The bench comprehensively examined Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, which governs the jurisdiction of Family Courts, noting that it does not envisage any power to transfer cases from one Family Court to another. The court clarified that while Section 10 of the Family Courts Act applies the CPC to its proceedings, the specific provisions of the special statute override the general powers under Section 24 of the CPC. Assuming such power for the Family Court, the bench observed, "would tantamount to legislate the law under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, which is not the domain and function of judicial Courts."

Exclusive Jurisdiction Of The High Court

Analyzing Section 24 of the CPC, the court emphasised that the general power to transfer suits is vested exclusively in the High Court or the District Court and is exercisable only over subordinate courts. The judges noted that a Family Court, established under Section 3 of the Family Courts Act, exercises equivalent jurisdiction to a District Court but cannot be deemed subordinate to the Principal District Judge. Relying on the division bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Munna Lal v. State of U.P., the court held that "it is only the High Court, which can exercise power and jurisdiction under Sections 22, 23 & 24 CPC to transfer a case from one Family Court to another."

No Subordination Between Family Courts

The division bench highlighted that even if a Principal Judge and an Additional Principal Judge are appointed in a district under Section 4(2) of the Act, they remain of the same rank. One Family Court cannot be considered legally subordinate to another within the same city or district. Therefore, the essential statutory prerequisite for Section 24 of the CPC—that the transfer involves a subordinate court—is fundamentally absent. The bench categorically stated, "since one Family Court is not subordinate to another Family Court in the same City/District, therefore, power of transfer can not be exercised by one Family Court."

Single Judge View Held Per Incuriam

The court critically examined the 2017 order passed by a Single Judge in Shantanu Agarwal vs. Anubha Jain, which had suggested that Family Courts could suo motu consolidate and transfer cases among themselves to save the time of the litigants. The division bench ruled that this view was formed without considering the strict statutory boundaries of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. Declaring the earlier directive legally flawed, the bench noted that "the view expounded by learned Single Judge in the order dated 24.04.2017... can be held per incuriam and is not a binding judicial precedent."

"Since, Family Courts are governed by their own special statutes and no such power to transfer cases is conferred upon them, the Family Court cannot exercise powers of transfer under Section 24 CPC."

Power Under Hindu Marriage Act Vests In High Court

Addressing parallel statutory frameworks, the court observed that the power of transfer mentioned under Section 21A of the Hindu Marriage Act can also only be exercised by a court empowered under Section 24 of the CPC. The bench firmly rejected the notion that administrative allocation of work by the High Court translates into a judicial power of transfer for the Family Courts. The court reiterated that such powers cannot be vested in the Family Court by any judicial order of a Single Judge.

The High Court disposed of the Civil Reference by declaring the initial transfer order passed by Family Court No. 1, Bharatpur, as non-est and entirely without jurisdiction. The bench directed that a copy of the ruling be circulated to all Family Courts across Rajasthan where multiple courts exist, clarifying that parties seeking case transfers must directly invoke the High Court's jurisdiction.

Date of Decision: 24 February 2026