https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198007 The Family Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a petition for regularisation of adoption under Hindu law because adoption is not among the matters expressly covered by Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and no separate enactment had conferred such power on that court. An order made without jurisdiction is a nullity, and the High Court could interfere in supervisory jurisdiction where a subordinate court usurps authority not vested in it. The impugned order regularising the adoption was therefore set aside. en-us Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Jan 2018 13:09:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198007 The Family Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a petition for regularisation of adoption under Hindu law because adoption is not among the matters expressly covered by Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and no separate enactment had conferred such power on that court. An order made without jurisdiction is a nullity, and the High Court could interfere in supervisory jurisdiction where a subordinate court usurps authority not vested in it. The impugned order regularising the adoption was therefore set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198007