1. The present civil revision has been filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing the impugned order dated 4.8.2026 passed by VI District Judge, Jabalpur in M.J.C.W.No.49/2025 whereby the proceedings in the case were closed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant has instituted proceedings under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1890') along with an interim application under Section 12 of the Act of 1890, upon which notice was issued to the respondent on 05.08.2025 and the respondent filed her reply. Arguments were heard on 25.03.2026 and the matter was reserved for orders; thereafter, upon transfer of the concerned Judge, the newly posted 6th District Judge directed that the interim application be heard afresh and fixed the matter for 12.05.2026. Subsequently, on 17.04.2026, the Court suo motu raised the issue of maintainability, though no such objection had been raised by the respondent. The applicant thereafter obtained the work-distribution order dated 30.04.2026 issued by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, showing that matters under the Guardians and Wards Act were allotted to the 6th District Judge. However, the learned court below returned the case to the applicant to file it before appropriate forum vide impugned order dated 4.8.2026.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the impugned order dated 04.08.2026 was passed in disregard to the work-distribution order and the applicable provisions of the Civil Courts Rules, 1958, and therefore seeks setting aside of the impugned order and remand of the matter to the concerned Court for decision of the interim application.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter pending under section 9 of the Act of 1890 is found to be not maintainable by the Civil Court because of the lack of jurisdiction of the civil Court in the light of the section 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1984') and, accordingly, the case was returned to the petitioner to file it before the appropriate forum.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has invested one and half years time in securing the presence of the respondent and the application is for the custody and production of the minor child. The Work Distribution Memo prepared by the District Judge under the Civil Court Rules filed as Annexure A4 contains that application under the Act of 1890 is maintainable before the civil court, therefore, the impugned order be set aside and the matter be restored.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

7. From perusal of the impugned order, it is found that the court below finding that the application under section 9 of Act of 1890 has been filed which is a subject matter of the Family Court having the jurisdiction in the light of section 7 and 8 of the Act of 1984, returned the case to the petitioner to file it before the appropriate forum. If the court lacks the jurisdiction then any proceeding pending or decided by the said Court is nullity in the eyes of law.

8. The Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Asma Lateef v. Shabbir Ahmad, (2024) 4 SCC 696 has held as under :-

          52. The legal and factual position of the present case having been noted above, we hold that a decision rendered by a court on the merits of a controversy in favour of the plaintiff without first adjudicating on its competence to decide such controversy would amount to a decision being rendered on an illegal and erroneous assumption of jurisdiction and, thus, be assailable as lacking in inherent jurisdiction and be treated as a nullity in the eye of the law; as a logical corollary, the order dated 5-8-1991 is held to be ab initio void and the decree drawn up based thereon is inexecutable.

9. Relevant section 7 and 8 of the Act of 1984 reads as under :-

          Section 7. Jurisdiction.- (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family court shall-

          ........

          Explanation.- The suits and proceedings referred to in this sub-section are suits and proceedings of the following nature, namely:-

          ...........

          (g) a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor.

          Section 8. Exclusion of jurisdiction and pending proceedings.- Where a Family Court has been established for any area,-

          .........

          (c) every suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 7 and every proceeding under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

          (i) which is pending immediately before the establishment of such Family Court before any district court or subordinate court referred to in that sub-section or, as the case may be, before any magistrate under the said Code; and

          .........

          shall stand transferred to such Family Court on the date on which it is established.

10. On conjoint reading of provisions of section 7 and 8, it is discerned that if an application under section 9 of the Act of 1890 is maintainable before the Family Court, therefore, any proceeding before the civil Court lacks jurisdiction as per section 8 of the Act of 1984.

11. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has to again file an application before the Family court and it will take again substantial time as the present matter has reached upto the stage of deciding an interim application after service on the non-applicant/respondent after considerable period of one and half years consumed before the civil court.

12. Section 8 of the Act of 1984 provides that where a Family court has been established for any area, then every suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 7 shall stand transferred to such Family court on the date on which it is established. An application under the provisions of the Act of 1890 falls within explanation (g) of sub-section (1) of section 7. The Court below has also observed that the application is to be heard by the Family court, therefore, by application of provision of section 8, it should have been transferred to the Family Court.

13. Therefore, to that extent, the impugned order has been found to be incorrect and illegal, which requires interference under section 115 of the CPC. Therefore, the impugned order dated 4.8.2026 passed by 6th District Judge, Jabalpur in M.J.C.W.No.49/2025 is set aside. The application is restored to its position with direction to the District Judge, Jabalpur to transfer the said case to the Family Court in the light of section 8 of the Family Courts Act.