Disputes between spouses regarding property ownership are maintainable in Family Court, even after a settlement in favor of a third party.

JUDGMENT :

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

1. The singular germane issue in this case is whether O.P.No.1512/2023 before the learned Family Court, N.Paravur (earlier filed as O.P.No.1016/2018 before the learned Family Court, Ernakulam) is maintainable, within the ambit of Section 7(1) of the FAMILY COURTS ACT , 1984 (‘Act’ for short).

2. The aforementioned Original Petition was filed by the respondent – husband against his wife and daughter, namely petitioners 1 and 2 respectively, on the allegation that he is the owner of the property in question - though he had purchased it in the name of his wife - expending his own money, through Sale Deed No.2584/1976, of SRO Paravur. He alleges that the property was held by his wife virtually in trust because, the entire consideration for it was paid by him; but that he was shocked in the year 2018, to understand that she had settled it in favour of the 2^nd petitioner, through Settlement Deed No.3305/2016 of SRO Paravur. He thus filed the Original Petition before the learned Family Court, seeking that he be declared to be the real owner of the property and that the above mentioned Settlement Deed be set aside.

3. The petitioners resisted the Original Petition by filing I.A.No.2/2023, contending that it is not maintainable before the learned Family Court; and this has culminated in Ext.P4 order against them, which is impugned by them in this Original Petition.

4. Sri.Rajesh Narayan Iyer – learned counsel for the respondent, argued that it can brook no forensic doubt that, under the ambit of Explanation (c) to Section 7(1) of the ‘Act’ any dispute between the spouses would be within the jurisdiction of the learned Family Court to consider. He relied upon two judgments, which are also cited by the learned Family Court, namely Pushpy @ Kochuthressia and Others v. Antony and Others , 2019 (1) KHC 85 (DB) and Abdul Jaleel v. Shahida , 2003 (2) KLT 403 , to fortify his contention that the Original Petition is maintainable. He thus prayed that this petition be dismissed.

5. However, Sri.K.Sujai Sathian – learned counsel for the petitioners, asserted that Ext.P4 has been issued by the learned Family Court without proper consideration of the relevant facts. He pointed out that, once the property had been settled by the 1^st petitioner in favour of the 2^nd petitioner - namely her daughter, then the learned Family Court lost jurisdiction to consider any claim over the same. He contended that the present Original Petition is a cause in disguise, initiated by the respondent against his daughter, who is now the owner of the property; and therefore, that the Original Petition is not maintainable.

6. We have examined Ext.P4 on the touchstone of the rival contentions, as also the provisions of Explanation (c) to Section 7(1) of the ‘Act’. For ease of reading, we extract the said Section as under:

7. Jurisdiction.—(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall—

(a) have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any District Court or any subordinate Civil Court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the Explanation.

(b) be deemed, for the purposes of exercising such jurisdiction under such law, to be a District Court or, as the case may be, such subordinate Civil Court for the area to which the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends.

Explanation.— The suits and proceedings referred to in this sub- section are suits and proceedings of the following nature, namely:—

(a) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage for a decree of nullity of marriage (declaring the marriage to be null and void or, as the case may be, annulling the mar