Family Courts Act does not oust High Court original civil jurisdiction; suit was not transferred to Family Court.

The Family Courts Act, 1984 does not exclude the High Court's ordinary original civil jurisdiction in suits of the nature described in Section 7. Section 8 was held to bar only district courts and subordinate civil courts where a Family Court is established, because the Act does not define "district court" to include the High Court and no clear words take away the jurisdiction of a superior court. The suit therefore did not stand transferred to the Family Court under the Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Family Courts Act, 1984 excluded the High Court's ordinary original civil jurisdiction in suits of the nature described in Section 7 and whether such a suit stood transferred to the Family Court under Section 8.

Analysis: The Act creates Family Courts and gives them jurisdiction over specified matrimonial and family matters, while Section 8 excludes the jurisdiction of district courts and subordinate civil courts where a Family Court is established. The critical question was whether a High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction is a "district court" for this purpose. The statutory scheme did not define "district court" so as to include the High Court, and other enactments that do so expressly were contrasted with the Act's language. The interpretation rule applied was that jurisdiction of courts, especially a superior court, is not taken away except by clear and unambiguous words. The provisions of the Act were held to operate against district courts and subordinate civil courts only, not the High Court on its original side.

Conclusion: The High Court's jurisdiction was not excluded by Sections 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and the suit did not stand transferred to the Family Court on that basis.

---