ORDER
V. Gopala Gowda, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. In this civil petition the wife is seeking transfer of M.C. No. 1001 of 1996 from the II Additional Family Court, Bangalore, to this High Court to try the same along with C.C.C. No. 18 of 2002. It is stated that since some of the exhibits have been removed and one of the exhibits is substituted, C.C.C. No. 18 of 2002 is filed and the same is pending. According to the petitioner, transfer of M.C. No. 1001 of 1996 is necessary to consider the said contempt case.
3. The petitioner has no right to state that the transfer of the case is necessary to this Court and try the same along with the contempt case referred to supra is wholly untenable in law. The petitioner has not pleaded inconvenience or hardship or tenable ground seeking for transfer of the M.C. case to this Court and try the same along with criminal contempt case referred to supra. On this ground alone the civil petition is liable to be dismissed in limine.
4. Section 24 of the CPC, which provisions confers power of transfer and withdrawal of any suit, appeal or other proceeding upon this Court which provision reads as under.-
“24(1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage-
(a) xxx
(b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it; and
(i) try or dispose of the same; or”.
Section 24(1)(b)(i) of the CPC is applicable to the present case. But, whether power can be exercised under this provision has to be examined.
5. The jurisdiction in relation to the family matters is conferred upon the Family Courts under the Family Courts Act. The said jurisdiction is original jurisdiction. The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of A.R. Antulay v R.S. Nayak and Anr., , after examining the jurisdiction conferred upon it, the Special Court under Criminal Procedure Code and Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, has laid down law at paragraphs 83 and 84 reiterated in the case of P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, . The relevant portion in the said paragraphs 83 and 84 is extracted hereunder.-
“83. ….. We are at the threshold of the crossroads of values.
It is, for the sovereign people of the country to settle those conflicts yet the Courts have vital roles to play in such matters. With the avowed object of speedier trial the case of the appellant had been transferred to the High Court but on grounds of expediency of trial he cannot be subjected to a procedure unwarranted by law, and contrary to the constitutional provisions. The appellant may or may not be an ideal politician. It is a fact, however, that the allegations have been brought against him by a person belonging to a political party opposed to him but that is not the decisive factor. If the appellant Shri Abdul Rehman Antulay has infringed law, he must be dealt with in accordance with the law. We proclaim and pronounce that no man is above the law, but at the same time reiterate and declare that no man can be denied his rights under the Constitution and the laws. He has a right to be dealt with in accordance with the law and not in derogation of it. This Court, in its anxiety to facilitate the parties to have a speedy trial gave directions on 16th February, 1984 as mentioned hereinbefore without conscious awareness of the exclusive jurisdiction of the Special Courts under the 1952 Act and that being the only procedure established by law, there can be no deviation from the terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. That is the only procedure under which it should have been guided. By reason of giving the directions on 16th February, 1984 this Court had also unintentionally caused the appellant the denial of rights under Article 14 of the Constitution by denying him the equal protection of law by being singled out for a special procedure not provided for by law. When these factors are brought to the notice of this Court, even if there are any technicalities this Court should nor feel shackled and decline to rectify that injustice or otherwise the injustice noticed will remain forever a blot on justice. It has been said long time ago that “Actus Curiae Nemine Gravabit” an act of the Court shall prejudice no man. This maxim is founded upon justice and good sense and affords a safe and certain guide for the administration of the law.
84. …. Now, their Lordships are of the opinion, that one of the first and highest duties of all Courts is to take care that the act of the Court does no injury to any of the suitors, and when the expression ‘the act of the Court’ is used, it does not mean merely the act of the primary Court, or of any intermediate Court of appeal, but the act of the Court as a whole, from the lowest Court which entertains jurisdiction over the matter up to the highest Court which finally disposes of the case. It is the duty of the aggregate of those Tribunals, if I may use the expression, to take care that no act of the Court in the course of the whole of the proceedings does an injury to the suitors in the Court”.
6. After going through the law laid down in AM. Antulay’s case, supra, by the Constitution Bench of Apex Court, wherein it is held that no man is above law but at the same time no man can be denied the constitutional laws. I am of the view that the jurisdiction of the Contempt Court is different from the jurisdiction of the Family Court. The Contempt Court cannot usurp the jurisdiction of Family Court. It follows that question of withdrawing hearing M.C. No. 1001 of 1996 from the Family Court and hearing the same by the Contempt Court, does not arise at all. The civil petition filed by the petitioner seeking for withdrawal and transfer of the above matrimonial case pending before the Family Court is without merit and therefore this Court cannot grant the relief as prayed.
7. Accordingly, this civil petition is dismissed.