Back
2003(3) Supreme 369
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Kerala High Court)
CJI and S.B. Sinha & AR. Lakshmanan, JJ.
K.A. Abdul Jaleel -Appellant
versus
T.A. Shahida -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3322 of 2003
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8996 of 2001)
Decided on 10-4-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Haris Beeran, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Advocates.
For the Respondent : T.L.V. Iyer, Sr. Advocate, Subramonium Prasad, Abhay Kumar and Gopal Krishnan, Advocates.
Held : The fact of the matter, as noticed hereinbefore, clearly shows that the dispute between the parties to the marriage arose out of the properties claimed by one spouse against the other. The respondent herein made a categorical statement to the effect that the properties were purchased out the amount paid in cash or by way of ornaments and the source of consideration for purchasing the properties described in Schedules A and B of the suit having been borne out of the same, the appellant herein was merely a trustee in relation thereto and could not have claimed any independent interest thereupon. It is also apparent that whereas the agreement marked as Exhibit A1 was executed on 17.09.1994, the appellant pronounced Talaq on 01.11.1995. The wordings disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for matters connected therewith in the view of this Court must be given a broad construction. The Statement of Objects and Reasons, as referred to hereinbefore, would clearly go to show that the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends, inter alia, in relation to properties of spouses or of either of them which would clearly mean that the properties claimed by the parties thereto as a spouse of other; irrespective of the claim whether property is claimed during the subsistence of a marriage or otherwise. The submission of the learned counsel to the effect that this Court should read the words "a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage" as parties to a subsisting marriage, in our considered view would lead to miscarriage of justice. (Paras 11 and 12)
It is now a well-settled principle of law that the jurisdiction of a court created specially for resolution of disputes of certain kinds should be construed liberally. The restricted meaning if ascribed to Explanation (c) appended to Section 7 of the Act, in our opinion, would frustrate the object wherefor the Family Courts were set up. (Para 14)
Key Points: - Family Courts have jurisdiction to decide disputes regarding properties claimed by divorced parties (!) (!) (!) . - The phrase "a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage" is not limited to parties to a subsisting marriage (!) (!) . - The Family Court Act aims to provide speedy settlement of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs, including property claims (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.-Leave granted.
2. Whether the Family Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any question relating to the properties of divorced parties arises for consideration in this appeal. The said question arises out of a judgment and order dated 20.03.2001 passed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dismissing an appeal from an order passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam, dated 22.07.1998 in O.P. No.343 of 1996.
3. The parties to this appeal were married on 03.01.1988. A female child was born out their wedlock on 11.10.1988. Allegedly, after the birth of the second child, owing to deterioration in the health of the respondent herein, the relationship of the parties became strained. The respondent contended that at the time of marriage, a large amount in cash as also gold ornaments were given. From the cash amount the appellant herein purchased a property described in Schedule A of the petition on 01.02.1988. The balance amount was kept by the appellant. He allegedly further sold the gold ornaments of the respondent and out of the sale proceeds he purchased the property described in Schedule B of the petition.
4. In respect of properties an agreement marked Exhibit A1 was executed by the parties, in terms whereof it was agreed that the properties purchased from the aforesaid amount will be transferred in the name of the respondent by the appellant. The appellant herein pronounced Talaq on 01.11.1995 after his relationship with the respondent became strained. In terms of the said agreement dated 17.09.1994, the respondent filed a suit marked O.S. No.85 of 1995 in the Family Court on 08.12.1995. The appellant in his written statement alleged that the said agreement was signed by him under threat and coercion and further contended that several documents purported to have been executed by him in support thereof were also obtained by applying force.
5. Both the parties examined themselves as also proved various documents in the said suit before the Family Court.
6. The Family Court by a judgment and order dated 22.07.1998 decreed the suit in favour of the respondent herein upon arriving at a finding that she was the absolute owner of the Schedule A property as also 23/100 shares in the Schedule B property.
7. Aggrieved thereby and dissatisfied therewith, the appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court which was marked as MFA No. 196 of 1999. By reason of the impugned judgment dated 20.03.2001, the said appeal has been dismissed.
8. Mr. Haris Beeran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that having regard to the provisions contained in Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the Family Court had no jurisdiction to decide a dispute as regards properties claimed by a divorced wife. The learned counsel would urge that the jurisdiction exercisable by any Family Court being between the parties to a marriage which would mean parties to a subsisting marriage. In support of the said contention strong reliance has been placed on a judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Amjum Hasan Siddiqui vs. Smt. Salma B. [AIR 1992 (Allahabad) 322] and Ponnavolu Sasidar vs. Sub-Registrar, Hayatnagar and Others [AIR 1992 (A.P.) 198].
9. Mr. T.L.V. Iyer, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would contend that the matter is covered by an inter-parties judgment passed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court which is since reported in [1997 (1) KLT 734]. As the appellant herein did not question the correctness of the said judgment, he cannot be permitted to turn round and now challenge the jurisdiction the Family Court.
10. The Family Courts Act was enacted to provide for the establishment of Family Courts with a view to promote conciliation in, and secure speedy settlement of, disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for matters connected there with. From a perusal of the Statement of Objects and Reasons, it appears
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
