Bombay High Court
GAYATRI D/O LATE KAILASH CHANDRA SONI @ MRS GAYATRI W/O RAVI SONIversusTHE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition is not maintainable because Section 8 of the General Clauses Act precludes a court from directing amendment of a statute.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Central Government to amend the Family Courts Act. Respondent No.1 argued that under Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, such a petition is not maintainable. The Additional Public Prosecutor produced a notification dated 16 July 2024 stating that references to the IPC, CrPC, and Evidence Act in any law shall be read as references to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam of 2023. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable and disposed of it. However, the Court directed the concerned court to decide the petitioner’s application within four weeks and instructed district judges to resolve pending maintenance applications within eight weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition seeking a direction to amend the Family Courts Act is maintainable under Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
- Whether the 16 July 2024 notification interpreting references to older statutes affects the maintainability of the petition.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Writ petition
- Maintainability
- General Clauses Act
- Section 8
- Family Courts Act
- Statutory amendment
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Procedural law
Judgment
Digitally signed by
BALAJI BALAJI
GOVINDRAO
GOVINDRAO PANCHAL
PANCHAL Date: 2026.02.22
11:45:41 +0530
20-crwp-6481-2025
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6481 OF 2025
Gaytri d/o Late Kailash Chandra Soni alias ...Petitioner
Mrs Gayatri w/o Ravi Soni
Versus
The Government of India, Ministry of Law &
Justice & Ors. ...Respondents
…..
Mr. Deepak N. Natu, with Mr. Milind D. Parab, i/b N. Deepak
& Co, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Ms. Neha M. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.
Mr. S. V. Gavand, Additional Public Prosecutor, for
Respondents Nos. 2 & 3-State.
…..
CORAM: SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ &
SUMAN SHYAM, J.
DATE: 20th FEBRUARY 2026
PC:-
Ms. Neha Patil, the learned counsel for respondent no. 1
refers to section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and
submits that the petition seeking a direction to the Central
Government to amend the Family Courts Act is not
maintainable.
2. The learned additional public prosecutor tenders a copy
of the Notification dated 16th July 2024 and submits that
wherever there is any reference of the Indian Penal Code or
Page 1 of 2
20-crwp-6481-2025
the Code of Criminal Procedure or Indian Evidence Act or any
provision thereof is made in any Act made by the Parliament
or Act made by Legislature of any State for the time being in
force such reference shall respectively be read as the
reference to Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 or Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023 and the corresponding provisions of such
law shall be construed accordingly.
3. In view thereof, Writ Petition No. 6481 of 2025 stands
disposed of.
4. However, we issue a direction to the Court concerned to
decide the application filed by the petitioner within a period of
four weeks irrespective of the labeling of the petition and a
report thereof shall be sent forthwith, to the registry of this
Court.
5. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Principal District and Sessions Judges of all the District
Courts within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Bombay
including its Benches as also High Court of Bombay at Goa
with a direction to them to decide all pending applications for
maintenance or interim applications thereto within a period of
next eight weeks.
(SUMAN SHYAM, J) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
{
Page 2 of 2
Checking your session…