1. Civil suit for declaration of marriage and legal heirship challenged by parties claiming competing status as spouse and child of the deceased. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 388
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
R. Kasthuri & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
M. Kasthuri & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 432 of 2018 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12985 of 2016]
Decided On : 16-01-2018
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. A. Mariarputham, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Ms. Simran Jeet, for M/s. Arputham Aruna And Co
For the Respondents: Ms. Malini Poduval, Ms. Babita Sant
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. A. Mariarputham, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Ms. Simran Jeet, for M/s. Arputham Aruna And Co
For the Respondents: Ms. Malini Poduval, Ms. Babita Sant
IMPORTANT POINT
Civil disputes can be adjudicated by a suit. Thesevrae not matters for family court.
Headnote:(a) Family Courts Act, 1984 – Sections 13, 14 and 15 – Constitution of Family courts – For settlement of family disputes by pre-litigation proceedings – Failing, adjudicated by special process provided in Sections 13, 14 and 15, different from what is adopted in ordinary civil proceedings. (Para 5, 6)
(b) Administration of justice – Property law – Instant dispute not a family dispute – It is a civil dispute – Can be resolved only on basis of evidence as per provisions of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – High Court wrongly holding that suit is not maintainable because the matter falls in family court domain. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
The suit was filed in a situation where the legal heirship obtained by the plaintiffs – appellants was sought to be challenged by the defendants 1 and 2 who claimed to be the wife and son of late Gunaseelan whom the plaintiff no.1 also claimed to be her husband.
The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court which decree was affirmed in First Appeal. The High Court, in Second Appeal, took the view that having regard to the nature of the suit and the reliefs claimed the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit which lay within the domain of the Family Court constituted under the Family Courts Act, 1984. Accordingly, on the aforesaid basis the decree has been reversed.
Finding of the Court:
High Court wrongly held that the suit was not maintainable.
Result: Appeal allowed. Matter remitted.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a suit for declaration of legal heirship and marital status falls within the jurisdiction of a civil court or the Family Court under the Family Courts Act, 1984. (Para 4 )
3. The Family Courts Act aims at conciliation and preserving marriage, whereas disputes over legal heirship after death are civil matters requiring evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. A dispute over legal heirship and marital status arising after the demise of a person is a civil dispute, not a family dispute requiring the special procedures of the Family Courts Act. (Para 8 )
5. Appeal allowed, High Court order set aside, and matter remanded to the High Court for decision on the merits of the second appeal. (Para 9 , 10 )
6. Does a dispute over legal heirship and marital status after the death of a spouse fall under the jurisdiction of the Family Courts Act, 1984?
No. Such disputes are considered purely civil disputes rather than family disputes. They do not involve the need to preserve the institution of marriage or require the conciliatory procedures provided under the Act. (Para 7 , 8 )
7. What is the primary objective of the Family Courts Act, 1984?
The Act aims to establish specialized courts for the speedy settlement of family disputes, emphasizing conciliation, achieving socially desirable results, and preserving the institution of marriage through procedures different from ordinary civil proceedings. (Para 5 , 6 )
8. Why is the ordinary civil court process preferred over the Family Court process for legal heirship disputes?
These disputes are resolved based on evidence tendered by parties and the admissibility of such evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which necessitates the benefit of legal counsel. (Para 8 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellants – plaintiffs had instituted a civil suit (O.S. No.222 of 1998) in the City Civil Court at Madras seeking, inter alia, following reliefs:
“A. Declaring that the first plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Gunaseelan S/o V.M. Aalai.
B. Declaring that the plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the legitims to children of the first plaintiff and late Gunaseelan S/o Alai.
C. Declaring that the first plaintiff as wife, the plaintiffs 2 to 4 as children and the 3rd defendant as mother are the legal heirs of late Gunaseelan S/o V.M. Aalai.”
3. The suit was filed in a situation where the legal heirship obtained by the plaintiffs – appellants was sought to be challenged by the defendants 1 and 2 who claimed to be the wife and son of late Gunaseelan whom the plaintiff no.1 also claimed to be her husband.
4. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court which decree was affirmed in First Appeal. The High Court, in Second Appeal, took the view that having regard to the nature of the suit and the reliefs claimed the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit which lay within the domain of the Family Court constituted under the Family Courts Act, 1984. (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) Accordingly, on the aforesaid basis the decree has been reversed.
5. The objects and reasons behind the enactment of the Act which is reproduced herein below would suggest that the reason for constitution of family courts is for settlement of family disputes, if possible, by pre-litigation proceedings. If the dispute cannot be settled the same has to be adjudicated by adoption of a process which is different from what is adopted in ordinary civil proceedings.
“Statement of objects and reasons:
Several associations of women, other organisations and individuals have urged, from time to time, that Family Courts be set up for the settlement of family disputes, where emphasis should be laid on conciliation and achieving socially desirable results and adherence to rigid rules of procedure and evidence should be eliminated. The Law Commission in its 59th report (1974) had also stressed that in dealing with disputes concerning the family the court ought to adopt an approach radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings and that it should make reasonable efforts at settlement before the commencement of the trial. The Code of Civil Procedure was amended in 1976 to provide for a special procedure to be adopted in suits or proceedings relating to matters concerning the family. However, not much use has been made by the courts in adopting this conciliatory procedure and the courts continue to deal with family disputes in the same manner as other civil matters and the same adversary approach prevails. The need was, therefore, felt, in the public interest, to establish Family Courts for speedy settlement of family disputes.”
6. Sections 13 , 14 and 15 of the Act spell out a special procedure. The other provisions of the Act i.e. Section 4(4) would indicate that a major objective behind the enactment of the Act is to have a specialized body to preserve and save the institution of marriage.
7. In the present case, there is no family dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The dispute arose after the demise of Gunaseelan to whom both the plaintiff No.1 and the defendant No.1 claim to be married. The other plaintiffs and defendant No.2 are the children claimed to be born out of the respective marriages.
8. The above would indicate that the dispute between the parties is purely a civil dispute and has no bearing on any dispute within a family which needs to be resolved by a special procedure as provided under the Act. No issue with regard to the institution of marriage and the need to preserve the same also arises in the present case. That apart, the dispute between the parties can only be resolved on the basis of evidence to be tendered by the parties, admissibility of which has to be adjudged withi
