Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. Banumathi and K.K. Sasidharan, JJ.
N. Kanageswary —Appellant
versus
T. Shrikandarah Rubindranathan —Respondent
O.S.A. No. 70 of 2012
Decided on 04.12.2012
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:C.A. Theagarajan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:G. Ilangovan, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Original side jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the property dispute between the spouses is not ousted by sections 7 and 8 of the Family Court Act, 1984.
Headnote:Family Court Act, 1984—Sections 7 and 8 —Whether the original side jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the property dispute between the spouses is ousted by sections 7 and 8 of the Family Court Act, 1984-There is no dispute that sections 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act confer jurisdiction on the Family Court to decide the disputes between the parties to a matter, including property disputes- In case, proceedings for dissolution of marriage or any other proceeding between the parties are pending adjudication before the Family Court, it would be in the best interest of both parties to resolve the property dispute also through the said Court- The parallel proceedings would cause difficulties in the parties- In case the matrimonial proceedings are pending before the Family Court and proceeding relating to property, before the original side of the High Court, it would be reasonable to make a request before the High Court to transfer the suit to the Family Court- However, it cannot be said that the High Court has no jurisdiction at all to entertain the suit between the spouses- Single Judge rightly held that High court had got concurrent jurisdiction with the Family Court and as such, the suit was maintainable-No error or illegality in said order, warranting interference-Appeal dismissed. (Paras 21 to 23)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
K.K. Sasidharan, J.—Whether the original side jurisdiction of the High Court to decide the property dispute between the spouses is ousted by sections 7 and 8 of the Family Court Act, 1984, is the core issue that arises for consideration in this intra Court appeal.
2. The appellant married the respondent on 24th February, 1993 in accordance with the custom prevailing among the Hindus. Thereafter, difference of opinion arose between the parties resulting in filing a divorce petition by the appellant before the Family Court in O.P. No. 1314 of 2004. The respondent remained ex parte in the said proceedings. Accordingly, the Principal Family Court was pleased to grant a decree of divorce on 25th October, 2004 in O.P. No. 1314 of 2004, dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the respondent.
3. The respondent thereafter filed a civil suit in C.S. No. 1081 of 2007 before the original side of this Court against the appellant praying for a decree of partition of residential flat into two and for allotment of one share to him. The appellant filed a written statement dated 29th June, 2009 disputing the claim made by the respondent. According to the appellant, there was no contribution from the respondent for the purpose of purchasing the flat. The appellant contended that the entire sale consideration was paid by her and considering the relationship between the parties, the flat was registered in joint name. Accordingly, the appellant prayed for dismissal of the civil suit.
4. The appellant thereafter filed an application in Diary No. 20369 of 2009 in C.S. No. 1081 of 2007 with a prayer to transfer the suit to the Family Court at Chennai for trial. The appellant in the affidavit filed in support of her application submitted that after the commencement of the Family Courts Act. Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try property disputes between the spouses and the Family Court alone was conferred with the exclusive jurisdiction to decide the family disputes, including disputes relating to property.
5. The application was opposed by the respondent by filing counter affidavit. According to the respondent, the marriage came to an end on account of the decree passed by the Family Court and as such, there is no marital relationship of husband and wife between the parties. The respondent further contended that the suit was taken up for trial and only after examining the witnesses on his side, the application was filed presumably to drag on the proceedings.
6. The learned Single Judge found that the property was valued more than Rs. 25,00,000/- and as such, High Court alone has got jurisdiction to try the suit. The learned Judge was of the view, that even in case it is made out that the Family Court has jurisdiction, it cannot be said that the said Court alone has got the exclusive jurisdiction. In short, the learned Judge was of the view that the High Court has got concurrent jurisdiction to try property dispute between the spouses and as such there was no merit in the application. Accordingly, the application was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant is before us by way of this original side appeal.
7. The learned Counsel for the appellant, by placing reliance on sections 7 and 8 of the Family Court Act. 1984 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.A. Abdul Jaleel v. Shahida, AIR 2003 SC 2525 contended that the Family Court alone has got exclusive jurisdiction to decide the property dispute between the parties. According to the learned Counsel, section 7 (c) of the Family Court Act gives exclusive jurisdiction to the Family Court to try suits or proceedings between the parties to marriage, with respect to the property of the parties or either of them. According to the learned Counsel, while considering a matter of this nature, the Court should take into account the objects and reasons which weighed with the legislature to enact the Family Courts Act. The learned Counsel further contended that in case the matter is transfe
