Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 11445
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BASANT BALAJI, J
SHAFANATH – Appellant
Versus
MUHAMMED HARIS K.T. – Respondent
CRP 28/2025
THAREEQ ANVER K., K.SALMA JENNATH, ARUN CHAND RASSAL, JANARDHANAN A., K.C.KHAMARUNNISA, FIROZ K.M., M.SHAJNA(K/1017/2006), P.C.MUHAMMED NOUSHIQ(K/000564/2017)
A lease agreement between parties with marital ties is a commercial transaction and not subject to Family Courts Act jurisdiction under Section 7.
Headnote:(A) Family Courts Act - Section 7 - Jurisdiction - Suit for permanent prohibitory injunction regarding a lease agreement between parties with marital ties - Court held that the transaction is purely commercial and does not arise out of the marital relationship, hence not barred under Section 7. (Paras 3, 4, 6, 7, 8)
(B) Jurisdiction of Family Courts - The court reiterated that not all transactions between spouses or relatives can be classified as arising from marital relationships, emphasizing that the nature of the transaction is crucial. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, husband and father-in-law, contested the maintainability of a suit filed by the respondent for injunction concerning a lease agreement for a dental clinic. The court found the lease to be a business transaction unrelated to marital issues.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the suit was maintainable in a civil court, as it did not arise from the marital relationship, but was a commercial transaction.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the lease agreement was a matter arising out of the marital relationship as per Section 7 of the Family Courts Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the lease agreement was a commercial transaction, not subject to the Family Courts Act's provisions regarding marital relationships.
Result: CRP fails and is dismissed.
ORDER
Dated this the 11th day of February, 2025
The defenants 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 334 of 2024 on the files of the Munsiff’s Court, Parappanangadi are the petitioners. The suit was filed by the respondent as plaintiff seeking permanent prohibitory injunction from possible eviction and interfering with the business in the plaint schedule property otherwise than due process of law.
2. The 1st petitioner is the wife of the respondent and the 2nd petitioner is the father of the 1st petitioner. 1st petitioner and the respondent are having matrimonial disputes between them. When an application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 came up for consideration before the learned Munsiff, the defendant raised a contention that the court does not have jurisdiction and the issue of maintainability has to be heard first. Therefore, an issue was raised as to the maintainability of the case before the court in view of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act .
3. The court below having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Counsel for the respondent and taking note of the intent of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act , came to the conclusion that the suit document which is a lease agreement between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant therein has nothing to do with the marital relationship with the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant and it is purely a business commercial transaction between the father-in- law and son-in-law. Hence, it cannot be termed as a suit or proceeding arising out of martial relationship and therefore, it is not barred under of the Family Court Act.
4. Sri. Thareeq Anverk, the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the 1st respondent being the husband of the 1st petitioner was given the plaint schedule property to conduct a dental clinic because of the marital relationship between them. Section 7 Sub Clause (c) of the Family Court Act covers a suit or proceedings between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or either of them. Sub Clause (d) of the said Section deals with suit or proceedings for an order or injunction in circumstances arising out of a martial relationship. Being so, the present suit filed for an injunction, definitely will come under Sub Clause (d) as the proceedings have initiated because of the circumstances out of the martial relationship. The first petitioner and the respondent are conducting business together, and the lease agreement executed between the 2nd petitioner and the respondent is to give effect to the suit conduct by the couple with and the martial relationship between them.
5. The learned Counsel relied on judgment of this Court inMini v. Sivaraman ( 2020 (6) KLT 44 ),P.T. Phillipose v. Sunil Jacob ( 2022 (2) KLT 234 ) and Isahack v. Mini ( 2024 (2) KHC 291 . The short question that arise for consideration in the present revision petition is whether the lease deed executed between the 2nd petitioner and the respondent is one arising out of the marriage. To invoke Section 7 (c) or (d) of the Act, the suit or proceeding should be between the parties to the marriage with respect to the property of the parties. Admittedly, the shop room where the respondent conducted dental business belongs to the 2nd respondent, who is the father in law. The lease deed has been produced as Annexure-R1(a) through a memo. A perusal of the said lease deed would show that it is a business transaction between the 2nd petitioner and the respondent. It is a simple licence agreement giving a shop room to conduct a dental centre for 11 months. Merely because, the 1st petitioner is also a part of the dental clinic, will not by itself be brought under (c) or (d) under the Family Court Act. Instead, to bring it within the purview of , the suit or proceedings should be one in circumstances arising out of the martial relationship.
6. In Mini’s Case (Supra), a Division Bench of this Court has held that in enforcement of the proprietary right over any person is not a c
