Not Feasible To Expect Documentary Evidence In Family Matters, Court Must Be Prudent: Kerala High Court Reiterates

The Kerala High Court has reiterated that it is not feasible to have documentary evidence in a transaction between spouses and in-laws, in a plea challenging the maintainability of a petition before the family court.

A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice C Pratheep Kumar observed that “in a transaction between spouses and in-laws, especially when it occurred during the period in which they were in cordial terms and most probably at the time of marriage or immediately before the marriage, usually there will be no documents to prove the same”.

The petitioner had challenged an original petition filed by his daughter (1st respondent) on the ground that the Family Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The respondent had filed a plea before the family court to assign the scheduled property in her favor in lieu of the money and gold belonging to her that was entrusted to the petitioner.

The court also rejected the petitioner's contention that the daughter had not produced any documents to prove the arrangement allegedly made between the petitioner and the 1st respondent.

The court relied on the decision in Muhammed Davood and Anr. v. Hafsath and Anr. where the division bench of the Kerala High Court had observed that a transaction between spouses is not likely to have documentary evidence.

Accordingly, it said that the bench cannot arrive at any conclusion regarding the merits of the case merely because there are no documents to substantiate the contentions of the 1st respondent. The court added that is it a matter to be decided by the Family Court while disposing of the original petition.

The court also said that because it is evident that the dispute between the parties arose in circumstances arising out of the marital relationship coming within the purview of Explanation (d) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 165

Case Title: Isahack v. Mini and ors.

Case Number: OP (FC) No. 58 of 2024

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates C Dilip, R Pradeep, Jijo Joseph, Anushka Vijayakumar, Vincent KD

Counsel for Respondent: Advocate Sachin Ramesh

Click here to read/download the order