“C.R.”

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN &

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 26TH MAGHA, 1944 MAT.APPEAL NO. 171 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2019 IN I.A.NO.1070 OF 2019 IN O.P.NO.400 OF 2019 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, KANNUR APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

RARIMA.R.

AGED 33 YEARS, D/O.RAMADAS.P, RESIDING AT JIJU DALE, KUNNUKUZHI, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, AN PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT RAREERAM, POOKOTHNADA, TALIPARAMBA P.O., TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670141.

BY ADVS.

V.T.MADHAVANUNNI SRI.V.A.SATHEESH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

1 REJULAL K.V.

AGED 35 YEARS, D/O.V.V.DAMODARAN, MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, MAROTTICHAL BRANCH, MAROTTICHAL P.O., TRISSUR-680014, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT PRASADAM, EDACHERRY, PALLIKUNNU P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670004.

2 V.V.DAMODARAN, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.KARAYAMBU, RESIDING AT EDACHERRY, PALLIKUNNU P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670004.

BY ADVS.

ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 06.02.2023, THE COURT ON 15.02.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

“C.R.”

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 1^st respondent-husband and the 2^nd 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 Section 7(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