SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 25156

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J
Abraham K. C. and Another v. Leena George
C. R. P. No. 241 of 2014



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.D.Premnath
For the Respondents: Sri.George Varghese Kizhakkambalam

Disputes regarding marital status and property rights of deceased spouses must be adjudicated in Family Court, as per Family Courts Act, ousting Civil Court jurisdiction.

Headnote:(A) Family Courts Act, 1984 - Sections 7 and 8 - Jurisdiction of Family Court vs. Civil Court - A suit for partition regarding property claimed as belonging to a deceased spouse - The married status of the plaintiff as the widow is disputed, and thus requires adjudication in Family Court instead of Civil Court. (Paras 25, 11, 7)

(B) Jurisdiction - Civil court jurisdiction is ousted in matters specifically within Family Court under aforementioned sections when the dispute involves matrimonial status or properties of spouses. (Paras 12, 16, 24)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claims partition of property belonging to her deceased husband, whose marital status with her was in contention due to a previous annulled marriage and subsequent divorce.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that disputes regarding marital status and property belonging to a deceased spouse fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court, thus remanding the case appropriately.

Issues: The primary issue was the determination of the plaintiff's marital status concerning the deceased for jurisdictional purposes in her claim for property partition.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded the Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving disputes of marriage and property between spouses or their claims, and thus the Civil Court's prior jurisdiction was reverted.

Result: The revision was allowed, and the finding of the court below regarding the Civil Court's jurisdiction was set aside.

Table of Content
1. plaintiff's claim for property based on marital status. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court must adjudicate on marital status before proceeding. (Para 3 , 4 , 7)
3. jurisdictional questions about the family court's authority. (Para 5 , 6 , 12 , 16)
4. final decision on jurisdiction ruling civil courts have no authority. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 25)

1. The above revision has been filed by the defendants in O.S.85/2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha against the order in I.A.1326/2012 in O.S.85/2012 in that court under S.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The suit was filed by the respondent herein as O.S.85/2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha for partition of the plaint schedule properties. It is alleged in the plaint that respondent herein is the wife of Sri.Reji K.Abraham, who is the son of the first revision petitioner and brother of the second revision petitioner. The respondent married Sri.Reji K. Abraham on 31.01.1994. Due to some misunderstanding between them, they started residing separately and she filed O.P. 206/2001 before this court for dissolution of marriage and during the pendency of that proceedings, the respondent and the said Reji K. Abraham filed joint petition for divorce under S.10A of Indian Divorce Act. This court passed a decree rule nisi. Thereafter respondent married a widower by name Biju Varghese on 26.08.2002, who was having a child. After sometime, there was some difference of opinion arose between the respondent and the said Biju Varghese, she filed O.P.783/2005 for restitution of conjugal rights against him and Biju Varghese filed O.P.1220/2005 to declare the marriage as nullity as the earlier marriage with Reji K. Abraham was not dissolved and it was not confirmed after a period of six months after passing a decree nisi. The Family Court allowed O.P.1220/2005 and dismissed O.P.783/2005 declaring the marriage as null and void. According to the plaintiff thereafter the Reji K.Abraham had taken her back and they resided together as husband and wife and while so, he died on 27.12.2006 due to heart failure. He was having right over the plaint schedule property which he obtained as per sale deed No.6763/1986 of S.R.O. Kothamangalam. Since he died intestate, his right in the property devolved on the respondent as his wife and the first petitioner. The respondent filed M.A.233/2007 before this court against the judgment in O.P.1220/2005 and the same was also dismissed declaring the marriage as null and void by judgment dated 16.08.2007, holding that the first marriage of the respondent is still subsisting. The first petitioner had relinguished his share in the plaint schedule property as legal heir of Reji K. Abraham in favour of second petitioner. Though the respondent approached the revision petitioners, they were not amenable for partition. So she filed the suit for partition as wife of late Reji K.Abraham for dividing the plaint schedule properties into two equal shares and allotment of one such share to her. Revision petitioners appeared and filed joint written statement contending that the property is not available for partition. The plaintiff is not entitled to get any right as she is not the wife of the deceased as their marriage was dissolved and the dispute regarding the status of the petitioner is covered by S.7 of the Family Courts Act as it comes within the explanation of (a) to (g) of Family Court Act and by virtue of S.8 of the Family Court Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is ousted. They also contended that, since the marriage has been dissolved, the plaintiff is not entitled to get any right and they prayed for dismissal of the suit.

3. The question regarding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was considered by the court below as a preliminary issue and the court below found that the contention of the defendants that the suit is not maintainable before this court by virtue of S.7 and S.8 of the Family Courts Act is not sustainable and found that, that court


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top