The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit by one spouse against the other spouse and a close relative of the other spouse for recovery of property, even if the suit involves claims against both the husband and the close relative.

This Original Petition is filed by a spouse to a subsisting marriage. She is the wife. She filed a suit against the other spouse to the marriage, her husband and her father-in-law. The suit was for recovery of amounts belonging to her and given into the hands of either the husband or the father-in-law at or about the time of the marriage for being held by them. It could probably be contended that they were to hold them in trust for her. She instituted the suit originally in the Family Court, Trichur. By an order of this Court, the said suit was transferred to the Family Court, Ernakulam for being tried with an application for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the husband in the District Court of Kottayam. This Court transferred that proceeding also to the Family Court, Ernakulam.

2. Before the Family Court, Ernakulam an objection was taken that since one of the parties arrayed as a defendant is not a party to the marriage but is only the father-in-law of the plaintiff and the suit relates to recovery of money entrusted to him also at the time of the engagement, the Family Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain or decide the suit. It was contended on behalf of the wife that the suit was by a spouse to a marriage against the other spouse and the claim for recovery of amounts under three heads was sought to be made jointly against the other spouse, the husband and the father-in-law and that there was nothing in the Family Courts Act which precluded the Court from trying such a suit. The learned Family Court Judge took the view that a suit could be entertained by the Family Court in respect of the property of one of the spouses only against the other spouse and not against the father of the other spouse and consequently it was necessary for the plaintiff wife to delete the second defendant father-in-law from the array of parties and only if she does so, the Family Court can proceed with the suit. The contention raised on behalf of the wife that the claim was for recovery jointly against the husband and the father-in-law and if the suit is not maintainable against the father-in-law, she would be forced to file another suit on the same cause of action against the father-in-law in another Court and to maintain the present suit against the husband in the Family Court simultaneously and such a situation cannot be normally contemplated was brushed aside by the Family Court. The order of the Family Court ordering the plaintiff-wife to amend the plaint suitably by deleting the claim against the father-in-law, second defendant and further holding that if the plaint is not so amended the suit will be proceeded with as if it is only one against the first defendant is challenged in this Original Petition filed by the wife. The prayers in the Original Petition are resisted by the husband and the father-in-law arrayed as respondents 1 and 2.

3-4. The Family Court is established by the Family Courts Act, 1984 with the object of establishing courts with a view to promote conciliation in and secure speedy settlement of disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for matters connected therewith. The Court is established by the issue of a Notification under Section 3 of the Act and a Judge is appointed in terms of Section 4 of the Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 4 provides that no person shall be qualified to be appointed as a Judge of the Family Court unless he had held for seven years a Judicial Office or office of a member of a Tribunal or any post under the Union or a State requiring special knowledge of law or has for at least seven years been an Advocate of a High Court or possessed such other qualification as the Central Government may with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of India prescribe. In this State, the Judges appointed under Section 4 of the Act are the District Judges in service or retired District Judges who had not attained the age of 62 years. The ju