Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 47095
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. Muhamed Mustaque, C.S. DIAS, JJ
SEBIE MERIN CHERIAN – Appellant
Versus
JOJI CHACKO – Respondent
Mat.Appeal/806/2013
SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL, SRI.S.SREEDEV, SRI.RONY JOSE, SHRI.CIMIL CHERIAN KOTTALIL, ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
Foreign citizens can maintain petitions in Indian Family Courts regarding marriage-related matters, as long as the marriage and transactions occurred in India.
Headnote:
Family Law - Family Courts Act, 1984 - Sections unspecified - The court interpreted the jurisdictional scope of the Family Courts Act concerning foreign citizens and found no statutory prohibition against them filing petitions in Indian family courts, leading to the reversal of the lower court's dismissal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged the Family Court's dismissal of her petition for recovery of Rs.30 lakhs and gold ornaments, arguing that her American citizenship did not negate her right to file under the Family Courts Act, 1984, given that the marriage and related transactions occurred in India.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Family Court wrongly dismissed the case based on the appellant's citizenship and that jurisdiction should be determined by the place of marriage and the location of alleged transactions, affirming the maintainability of the petition.
Issues: Whether a foreign citizen can file a petition regarding marriage-related matters in the Indian Family Court under the Family Courts Act, 1984.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that substantial jurisdiction is linked to the cause of action, and since the marriage took place in India, the appellant's claim remains valid under Indian law, independent of her later citizenship changes.
Final Decision: The Family Court's dismissal is set aside, and the case is to be heard on its merits.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 5th day of February 2021 A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
This Mat.Appeal was filed challenging the dismissal of the Original Petition No.61/2013 on the file of the Family court, Kalpetta. The appellant is the petitioner in the above Original Petition. The respondents are the respondents in the above Original Petition.
2. The above Original Petition was filed for recovery of Rs.30 lakhs and return of 140 sovereigns of gold alleged to have been given at the time of marriage by the appellant's father to the respondents.
3. The appellant, after the marriage, acquired citizenship of America. The respondents raised preliminary objection in regard to the maintainability of the petition before the Family Court, contending that the petitioner herself is the citizen of America and the petition is not maintainable under the Family Courts Act, 1984 .
4. The Family Court upholding the preliminary objection, dismissed the petition holding that it is not maintainable.
5. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the petition for the return of patrimony and gold ornaments would lie before the Family Court or not. Admittedly, the marriage took place between the parties at the Jerusalem Marthoma Church, Sulthan Bathery. In regard to matters related to marriages, the place of celebration is having jurisdiction. Admittedly, the marriage took place in India. The alleged entrustment of the movables also took place in India. Merely for the reason that the appellant acquired citizenship of America subsequent to the marriage will not dis-entitle her for moving the courts in India. The provisions under the Family Courts Act do not prevent a foreign citizen suing before the court having jurisdiction in India under the Family Courts Act. Substantial jurisdiction has to be understood with reference to the cause of action. Under the private international law, personal action would lie before the Family Court, where the marriage was celebrated. In the absence of any statutory prohibition under the Family Courts Act, the claim of a foreign citizen is perfectly maintainable. In the light of the law enunciated above, we are of the view that the petition is perfectly maintainable before the Family court.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents would raise a contention regarding resjudicata. According to him, the issue was tried and decided in O.P.No.142/2012 before the Family Court, Kalpetta. Therefore, the second petition is not maintainable. In fact, this issue has not been considered by the Family Court.
In such circumstances, we are of the view that reserving liberty to the respondents to raise the contention based on resjudicata before the Family Court, this Appeal is disposed of. The impugned judgment is set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 05.03.2021. All pending interlocutory applications are closed.
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE
