Transfer of maintenance proceedings from Family Courts to Gram Nyayalayas in exercise of statutory powers is valid in law

In Civil Court Bar Association & Anr. vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Ors. ( 2026), Division Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi held on May 26 that where an action is taken under statutory authority, its validity cannot be questioned independently without first challenging the provision conferring such power.

The Allahabad High Court has held that transfer of maintenance proceedings from Family Courts to Gram Nyayalayas in exercise of statutory powers is valid in law.

The Court also held that a challenge to administrative or consequential action is not maintainable in the absence of any challenge to the statutory provisions under which such action is taken.

The Court was hearing writ petitions challenging administrative orders directing transfer of maintenance proceedings from Family Courts to Gram Nyayalayas under the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008.

It observed that “where an administrative or consequential action is founded upon a statutory provision, the same cannot be set aside without first dislodging the statutory foundation itself”, held: “The challenge to impugned orders is not maintainable in the absence of any challenge to the validity of the statutory provision under which it is passed, and further, applying the settled principle that a later enactment prevails over an earlier enactment in case of inconsistency, the transfer of maintenance proceedings from the Family Court constituted under the Family Courts Act, 1984 to the Gram Nyayalaya under Section 16 of the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 is held to be valid”.

The petitioners had challenged administrative orders passed by the District Judiciary transferring maintenance proceedings pending before Family Courts to Gram Nyayalayas. The principal contention raised was that such a transfer deprived litigants of their statutory right of appeal to the High Court under the Family Courts Act, 1984 and was contrary to the legislative scheme.

It was also submitted that Family Courts, being special courts constituted for the adjudication of family disputes, possessed exclusive jurisdiction which could not be divested through administrative orders. The petitioners also argued that the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008, operated in a distinct field and could not override the Family Courts Act.

The respondents submitted that the transfer by relying upon Sections 12 and 16 of the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008, which empower Gram Nyayalayas to entertain maintenance claims and authorise transfer of pending proceedings.

The Court noted that Section 12 of the Gram Nyayalayas Act confers jurisdiction upon Gram Nyayalayas to entertain maintenance proceedings, while Section 16 empowers the District Judge to transfer pending cases. It further observed that Section 18 provides an overriding effect to the Act in criminal matters, thereby reinforcing the legislative intent to expand access to justice at the grassroots level.

The Court reiterated the settled principle that where two special statutes are irreconcilable, the later enactment must prevail. Relying on Solidaire India Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. (2001) and subsequent decisions, the Court held that the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008, being a later enactment, would prevail to the extent of inconsistency.

The Court further held that the petitioners had failed to challenge the vires or applicability of the relevant provisions of the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008, namely Sections 12, 16, and 18, which constituted the very source of the power exercised.

It observed that “the validity of the action taken thereunder cannot be assailed in isolation,” and reiterated the principle that a consequential order cannot be challenged without assailing the foundational statutory provision.

The Court relied upon precedents, including V.K. Majotra vs. Union of India (2003) and Edukanti Kistamma vs. S. Venkatareddy (2010), to emphasise that courts cannot nullify actions taken under statutory authority without first striking down the enabling provision.

The judgement reads: “In the absence of any challenge to the vires or applicability of the statutory provisions, the validity of the action taken thereunder cannot be assailed in isolation, …it is a well-settled legal principle that where an administrative or consequential action is founded upon a statutory provision, the same cannot be set aside without first dislodging the statutory foundation itself, … the impugned orders, having been passed in exercise of powers provided in the enactment, cannot be termed as without jurisdiction so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution”.

The Court also observed that the impugned orders, being administrative in nature and traceable to statutory power, could not be termed as without jurisdiction to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The High Court held that the challenge to the administrative orders was not maintainable in the absence of any challenge to the statutory provisions under which such orders were passed.

The Court upheld the validity of the transfer of maintenance proceedings from Family Courts to Gram Nyayalayas under Section 16 of the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 and dismissed the writ petitions.