Family Courts have exclusive jurisdiction under Section 7 Explanation (c) of Family Courts Act to adjudicate post-decree property disputes between spouses, overriding Section 27 Hindu Marriage Act limitations, using harmonious construction.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

Appellant has preferred this appeal against impugned order dated 12.10.2022, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Hamirpur, H.P. in CMA No. 102 of 2017, filed by the appellant under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for return of property/Istridhan, gifts and other articles, in HMA Petition No.140 of 2016 (Reg. No.302 of 2016) preferred under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, titled as Astha Thakur vs. Dhananjay Kanwar, for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent.

2. Admittedly, HMA Petition No.140 of 2016 (Reg. No.302/2016) has been allowed by passing ex-parte decree of divorce in favour of the appellant on 31.01.2018, however, application preferred under Section 27 of Hindu Marriage Act, was not decided along with the main petition and it was adjudicated later on and dismissed by the Principal Judge, Family Court by passing impugned order, by returning finding that once a decree for dissolution of marriage has been passed, and provision for disposal of property has not been made in the said decree, no independent order can be passed in an application preferred with respect to property including an application preferred under of the Hindu Marriage Act, during pendency of the main petition, and also on the ground that the application preferred by the appellant under of the Hindu Marriage Act, was not maintainable, being not in purview of the powers of the Family Court in the capacity of matrimonial/Family Court, exercising jurisdiction under of the Hindu Marriage Act, and ultimately, it was held that the Family Court was not possessing jurisdiction to entertain the application and accordingly, no findings were returned on merit, but application was dismissed being not maintainable, before the Family Court.

3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have also gone through the record.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the findings returned by the Family Court for reasons assigned therein, which has been rebutted by the learned counsel for the appellant by referring pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Balkrishna Ramchandra Kadam vs. Sangeeta Balkrishna Kadam , reported in (1997) 7 Supreme Court Cases 500 and Balram Yadav vs. Fulmaniya Yadav , reported in (2016) 13 Supreme Court Cases 308.

5. The Family Court Act has been enacted to provide for the establishment of Family 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 by exclusively providing within the jurisdiction of Family Court in the matters relating to matrimonial relief, including nullity of marriage, judicial separation, divorce, restitution of conjugal rights or declaration as to the validity of marriage and as to the matrimonial status of any person; property of spouse or of either of them; and declaration as to legitimacy of any person; guardianship of a person or custody of any minor and maintenance including proceedings under Chapter IX of Criminal Procedure Code (now Chapter 10 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), as evident from the statement of objects and reasons.

6. Chapter III of Family Court Act deals with jurisdiction, wherein Section 7 and Section 8, read as under:-

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