Important points:
Even if one of the parties to the marriage had expired, claim for value of gold ornaments and money paid at the time of marriage are matters coming under the terms 'circumstances arising out of a marital relationship.

JUDGMENT :

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.

The jurisdiction of the Family Court to deal with a suit for injunction filed by the father-in-law against the daughter-in-law arises for consideration. The Family Court held that it has no jurisdiction since the said suit is not based on 'circumstances arising out of a marital relationship'. The daughter-in-law has preferred this appeal challenging the order returning the plaint for presentation to the proper court.

2. This case has an interesting past. A suit was originally filed before the Munsiff Court, Vaikom as O.S. No.157 of 2013. The relief claimed in the suit was for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to vacate the plaint schedule building and also for a prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants or anybody acting under them from interfering with the title and possession of the plaintiffs, after such eviction. Plaintiffs in that suit are the respondents herein while the defendants in the suit are the appellants before us. The appellants before us are the daughter-in-law and grandchildren of the respondents while the respondents herein are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the 1st appellant. For the purpose of easier comprehension, the parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed in O.S. No.157 of 2013 of the Munsiff Court, Vaikom.

3. It was alleged in the plaint that the 1st plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule building and that defendants are the wife and children of their deceased son. According to plaintiffs, after marriage, the 1st defendant and her husband resided in a property, which was purchased by the 1st plaintiff in the name of his son and that when the son expressed his inclination to stay with his parents, the plaintiffs permitted the son along with his family to come and reside with them. While so, it is alleged that, the 1st defendant and the son of the plaintiffs slowly moved into a quarrelsome relationship, which ultimately ended up in the suicide of plaintiffs' son and thereafter, due to harassment by the 1st defendant and her family members, plaintiffs were forced to move out of the schedule building. According to the plaintiffs, even though defendants have an alternate building which remains in the name of the plaintiffs' son, defendants are residing in the building of the 1st plaintiff by force. It is in such circumstances, the suit was instituted before the Munsiff Court, Vaikom. The cause of action for the suit is stated to be the assault and forcible eviction of plaintiffs on 6.12.2011 by the 1st defendant and her brother.

4. After the written statement was filed, the learned Munsiff, by his order dated 11.2.2015, returned the suit for presentation before the proper court, after finding that by virtue of Section 7(1) Explanation (d) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act') the suit was barred under the said provision as it is arising out of a marital relationship.

5. The plaint was re-presented before the Family Court, Kottayam. By the impugned order dated 29.2.2016, the Family Court found that the suit is beyond the scope of Sections 7(1) Expln.(c) and (d) of the Act and held that only the civil court has jurisdiction over the dispute. Accordingly, the plaint was returned by the Family Court to be presented to the proper court.

6. The defendants in the suit have preferred this appeal challenging the order of the Family Court. It is contended that the Family Court went wrong in holding that the dispute in the instant case does not attract the jurisdiction, especially since it had not taken into reckoning the very purpose of establishing the Family Courts. It was also submitted that the earlier rejection of plaint was never challenged and the same became final and binding.

7. We have heard Adv.B.Renjith Kumar, learned counsel for the defendants (Appellants) as well as Adv.K.K.Akil, learned counsel for the plaintiffs (Respondents).

8. Admittedly the plaint schedule building belongs to the 1st plaintiff. Eve