Property Dispute Between Mother & Child Does Not Fall Under Explanation (c) To S.7(1) Family Courts Act, Civil Court Jurisdiction Not Barred: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court recently held that in order to attract Clause (c) of explanation to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, it must be satisfied that a suit or proceedings for an order or injunction should be in circumstances "arising out of a marital relationship", and the dispute should be one with respect to the properties of such 'parties to marriage'. 

The provision states that a Family Court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of suits and proceedings between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them.

Thus, Justice MR Anitha held that a property dispute between a mother and her children cannot be included under Clause (c) of explanation to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, for it is a civil dispute and does not involve any questions regarding the marital status or validity of marriage and as a consequence, it cannot be said that jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred in case of such dispute between a mother and child. 

"...there is no question of arising a dispute with respect to property in between the parties to marriage or any circumstances arising out of marital relationship since the plaintiffs and the defendant are wife and children of late Narayanan."

The observation of the lower courts that only the Family Court had jurisdiction to entertain the matter, was thus found by the court to be wrong to this end. 

The Court ascertained that the following substantial question of law arose in the instant case to be determined: 

When the suit was filed for setting aside a will executed by the deceased, since no questions regarding marital status, validity of marriage and rights arising therefrom are involved, and since no adjudication in that regard is to be made, whether the Courts below had erred in finding that the suit is not maintainable before the Civil Court, and that it could be adjudicated only by a Family Court. 

On behalf of the plaintiff-appellant wife (hereinafter 'the 1st plaintiff'), it was contended by the counsels, Advocates K.S. Hariharaputhran, and Bhanu Thilak, that the plaint schedule property belonged to 1st plaintiff and the deceased jointly, and the latter had executed a Will with respect to his half right bequeathing the properties equally among the plaintiff and the respondent. It was contended that in such a scenario, there was no case of there arising a dispute with respect to property between the parties to marriage or any circumstances arising out of marital relationship since the plaintiffs and the defendant are wife and children of the deceased, and hence Clause (c) of explanation to Section 7(1) would not be applicable since there was no question of treating them as parties to marriage and the property and dispute was not with respect to the property of the parties to marriage or either of them.

To this end, the Munsiff's Court and subsequently, the First Appellate Court finding that its jurisdiction was barred and only the Family Court could entertain the matter was contended by the Counsels as being bad in law and challenged.

In the suit filed by the defendant before the Munsiff Court also, it was averred that the suit was originally filed for setting aside the Will executed by the deceased. Subsequently, another relief was incorporated declaration that 1st defendant (the 1st plaintiff herein) is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased, along with declaration of adverse possession which were all submitted by the counsels as not being relevant. It was contended that there was no family dispute to be resolved by Family court in either of the cases and further that the 1st plaintiff had passed.  It was contended that since no questions of marital status and validity was involved, Clause (c) of explanation to Section 7(1) would not be applicable since the same was an essential requisite of the provision. 

The Court in the instant case noted that in order to attract the application of Clause (c) of explanation to Section 7(1), the parties should have a case that the suit or proceeding should be between the parties to marriage and it should be with respect to the property of the parties or either of them. The Court added that since the plaintiffs and defendant herein were the wife and children of the deceased, 

"...the dispute between a mother and children cannot at any moment can be included under Clause (c) of explanation to Section 7(1)", it was observed.

It was further observed that in order to attract Clause (d) of explanation to Section 7(1), it must be satisfied that a suit or proceedings for an order or injunction should be in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship, which also does not find application in the instant case. As per Section 7 (1) Explanation Clause (b), the Family Court jurisdiction extends over questions of validity of marriage and marital status, which isn't the case here, either.

The factual position herein was that one suit had been filed by the mother and children against one of her daughters born out of deceased person,  and the other suit had been filed by the defendant daughter against her mother and siblings for setting aside the Will executed by the father as well as for a declaration that her mother is not legally wedded wife of deceased and also to declare her title by adverse possession and further to set aside the sale deeds executed by another child of the deceased.

The Court also took note of the fact that in the instant case, the first plaintiff was no more, and the other plaintiffs and the defendant are all the legal heirs of the deceased. Resultantly, it was in this context that it arrived at its finding that the dispute involved, which was between a mother and her children, was "purely a civil dispute", where the question with regard to the institution of marriage or necessity to preserve the same did not arise.

"The mother and children cannot be taken as parties to marriage and the property as the property of the parties to marriage or of either of them so as to attract the bar under Explanation (c) to Section 7(1)."

To this end, it set aside the order of the Munsiff Court and remanded the case back to it to be disposed of expeditiously, within 4 months of the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment.

Case Title: Brinda & Ors v. Muktha K.N. 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 479

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment