The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the Family Court under the Family Courts Act, 1984 is limited to suits or proceedings in relation to circumstances arising out of a legal marital relationship, and does not extend to purely civil disputes.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. 369/2016 pending on the files of the Munsiff Court, Changanacherry. The suit is filed seeking permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the 3rd defendant from registering any deed in respect of the plaint schedule property at the instance of defendants 1 and 2 and also to restrain the 4th defendant from mutating the plaint schedule property in the name of defendants 1 and 2/respondents 1 and 2. The averments in the suit are to the following effect.

The plaint schedule property originally belonged to the petitioner’s son James and upon the death of James in the year 1987, the property devolved upon his father Joseph, i.e. the husband of the plaintiff. Joseph died intestate and thereupon the property devolved upon the plaintiff and her other children in accordance with the Indian Succession Act. As the children are living abroad, the plaintiff is managing the property. While so, the plaintiff got information that the first defendant had approached the 4th defendant Village Officer for getting the property mutated in the name of defendants 1 and 2, by claiming to be the widow and son of deceased James.

2. In their written statement the defendants stated that James and the first defendant were residing together and had entered into a marriage agreement on 30/10/1986 and the second defendant is the son born to James and the first defendant.

3. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:

(i) Is the plaintiff entitled to get a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction as prayed for?

(ii) What is the order as to costs?

4. In the trial of the suit, the plaintiff was examined in part. At that stage, the Counsel for the second defendant challenged the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the Munsiff Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and such power is vested with the Family Court alone. The learned Munsiff accepted the contention and held that, since the cause of action is based on the rights and obligations of the second defendant arising out of an alleged marital relationship between his mother/1st defendant and James, the deceased son of the plaintiff, the suit is one covered by Explanation (d) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (‘the Act’ for short). Based on that finding, the plaint was returned for presentation before the Family Court having jurisdiction. Although petitioner preferred an appeal challenging the order, the same was dismissed affirming the findings of the trial court. Hence this revision.

5. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the courts below committed a fundamental flaw in holding that only the Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. For reaching such conclusion, the court below relied on Explanation (d) to Section 7(1) of the Act, which has no application to the facts of the case. It is argued that Explanation (d) to Section 7(1) of the Act would apply only to a suit or proceeding for an order or injunction in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship. As far as the case at hand is concerned, the dispute is purely civil in nature and the contention that the first defendant had entered into a marriage agreement with the deceased son of the petitioner and the second defendant is the child born out of that relationship will not make it a suit for injunction in relation to circumstances arising out of a marital relationship. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Kasthuri R. and Others vs. M. Kasthuri and Others, 2018 (5) SCC 353. It is submitted that the respondents/defendants have filed another suit before the Munsiff’s Court seeking a declaration that the first respondent is the legally wedded wife of deceased James and the second respondent is the child born out of that relationship.

6. I heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents also.

7. Having carefully considered the contentions and upon scr