Family Courts do not have jurisdiction over defamation claims as they are not intrinsically related to marital relationships under the Family Courts Act.

JUDGMENT

P.G. Ajithkumar, J.

The appellant filed O.P.No.400 of 2019 before the Family Court, Kannur. The relief claimed is damages for defamation. The respondents are her husband and father-in-law. Respondents filed I.A.No.1070 of 2019 contending that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the original petition. The Family Court heard the question of maintainability and allowed I.A.No.1070 of 2019. The petition was accordingly returned to the appellant for being presented before the proper court. Aggrieved thereof the appellant has filed this appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 .

2. Pursuant to notice, the respondents appeared through their learned counsel. Delay of 70 days in filing the appeal was condoned as per order dated 22.12.2022 in C.M.Appl.No.1 of 2021.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. O.P.No.400 of 2019 was filed claiming damages. It was contended that the 1st respondent-husband and the 2nd respondent-father-in-law described the appellant in public as a mentally ill person. Statements were made in the pleadings submitted before the Family Court and uttered in the presence of others. Her reputation and image in the society was thereby tarnished. The appellant would allege that the respondents with a malicious intention hurled such allegations. The appellant based on such pleadings claimed an amount of Rs.50 lakhs as compensation. The question arises for consideration is whether the Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition claiming compensation on account of defamation.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that when the claim is by a party to a marriage against the other party and the cause of action has a nexus to the marriage, the Family Court is competent to decide it. The petition was filed before the Family Court invoking the provisions of Explanation (a) and (c) to Section 7 (1) of the Family Courts Act. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, would submit that the petition comes under Explanation (d) to (1) of the Act and that the order of the Family Court refusing to entertain O.P.No.400 of 2019 is incorrect.

6. Explanation (a) to Section 7 (1) of the Act relates to grant of a decree of nullity of marriage, restitution of conjugal right, judicial separation or dissolution of marriage. Explanation (c) relates to suits or proceedings between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or either of them. A claim for compensation for a tortious act is a chose in action and it is not a property upon which the claimant has a vested right. Therefore, the view taken by the Family Court that the present petition being one claiming compensation for slanderous statements is not covered by either clause (a) or clause (c), is correct.

7. Explanation (d) of Section 7 (1) reads,-

“(d) a suit or proceeding for an order or injunction in circumstances arising out a marital relationship.”

If the suit or proceedings is for an order in circumstances arising out of the marital relationship, the Family Court has jurisdiction. The allegation of the appellant is that she was depicted as a mentally ill person in front of others by her husband and father-in-law, causing her defamation. The marriage subsists. Such a malicious statement was made in the petition in O.P.No.100 of 2018 filed by the 1st respondent for custody of the child. Slanderous statements were made by the respondents before public officers and in public. It is to be considered whether the petition claiming compensation on account of such statements partakes the nature of a proceedings within the purview of Explanation (d) to Section

7(1) of the Family Courts Act.

8. In K.A.Abdul Jaleel v. T.A.Shahida [AIR 2003 SC 2525] the Apex Court considered the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of the Family Court. It was held that it is now a well-settled principle of law that the jurisdiction of a