Family Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over marital status declarations and property disputes related to marriage, as established by the Family Courts Act, 1984.

JUDGMENT :

R.DEVDAS, J.

The appellants, the legal representatives of Smt.Narasamma who had filed O.S.No.28/2022 before the Principal Judge, Family Court at Raichur, are before this Court aggrieved of the impugned order dated 25.07.2023 passed by the Family Court returning the plaint to the plaintiff on the ground that the suit filed before the Family Court is not maintainable in law.

2. A brief background is required to be stated as to how such a suit came to be filed before the Family Court. Smt.Narsamma appears to have approached the revenue authorities seeking mutation and entry of her name in respect of landed properties which were earlier standing in the name of her husband late Sri.G.Narasanna. The revenue authorities entertained the claim of Smt.Narsamma and set aside the mutation dated 05.02.2001 which was made in favour of the respondent herein. Feeling aggrieved the respondent challenged the order of the revenue authorities before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the revision and set aside the order passed by the revenue authorities thereby ensuring that the revenue entries made in favour of the respondent continue. The matter came before this Court and thereafter, the respondent took up the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 21.11.2022 in Civil Appeal No.8654/2022 arising out of SLP (C) No.18779/2022 held that the recourse adopted by Smt.Narasamma in approaching the revenue authorities is an exercise in futility as neither the Deputy Commissioner nor any other revenue authority is competent to determine the right of the parties as to the legal status. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that such controversy could be decided by a civil Court only. Smt.Narasamma submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that she will file a civil suit seeking declaration of her marital status. Accordingly, the matter was disposed of while directing that till the disposal of the civil suit, the respondent shall neither alienate nor create any encumbrance upon the suit property. Thereafter, the suit in O.S.No.28/2022 was filed by Smt.Narasamma before the Principal Bench, Family Court at Raichur. Issues were framed and issue No.5 was taken up as preliminary issue which is, “Whether this suit is maintainable under law in this Family Court?”

3. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Raichur, while considering the arguments made on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant and on consideration of a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.Kasthuri and Others vs. M.Kasthuri and Others reported in (2018)5 SCC 353 held that principally the dispute is amongst plaintiff and defendant who claim to be the legally wedded wives of late Sri.G.Narasanna to whom Survey No.184/A (Old Sy.No.184) measuring 8 acres 24 guntas situated at Raichur belonged and therefore, the dispute involved in the suit is not so simple as submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff to claim relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of late Sri.G.Narasanna without claiming the consequential reliefs in respect of the landed properties involved between the parties. It was held that such dispute involved in the suit cannot be decided by a Family Court by adopting summary procedure as contemplated in the Family Courts Act, 1984. Accordingly, the plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff to enable the plaintiff to present the same before a Civil Court having competent jurisdiction.

4. After the order was passed by the Family Court, Smt.Narasamma died and therefore, her legal heirs have filed this appeal, along with an application seeking leave of the Court to permit them to prosecute the appeal.

5. Having regard to the facts narrated hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the application filed by the appellants seeking leave of the Court to prosecute the appeal is required to be allowed and it is accordingly, allowed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants