Property disputes involving marital relationships do not automatically fall under Family Court jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

The original petition has been filed challenging Ext.P5 order in I.A.No.2/2024 in O.S.No.1172/2023 on the file of the Additional Munsiff Court II, Neyyattinkara. I.A.No.2/2024 was filed challenging the maintainability of the suit before the Munsiff Court. According to the petitioners, who are defendants 1 & 2, the suit was one involving circumstances arising out of marital relationships and hence as per Section 7 (1) Explanation (d) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 , the suit ought to be filed before the Family Court. According to the petitioners, the suit is essentially based on consequences of a marriage and succession rights arising therefrom. The court below held that the suit is maintainable and it cannot be stated to be one which is for an order or injunction in circumstances arising out of marital relationships.

2. The counsel for the petitioners relies on three Division Bench decisions of this Court in Leby Issac V. Leena M. Ninan and Others ( 2005 KHC 960 ), Anil Kumar K.B. V. Sheela N.S.

and Others ( 2011 (3) KHC 942 ) and Krishna Moorthy V. Soumya Krishnan and Another ( 2015 (5) KHC 365 ) in support of the contention.

3. The suit is one for declaration that a settlement Deed No.801/2023 and Sale Deeds bearing Nos.878/2023, 879/2023, 880/2023 and 881/2023 are null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and for a declaration of title and legal heirship to the plaint schedule properties. There is also a prayer for permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants from trespassing into or encumbering the said properties. The plaintiffs are siblings and the properties were family properties of the plaintiffs. The properties were settled by the plaintiffs along with their parents in favour of their sister as per Settlement Deed No.1344/2003. Their sister Bindu died on 29.04.2016. Bindu had married the 1^st defendant and she was survived by her husband, her mother Sathyabhama Amma and the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed succession on the death of Bindu through their mother Sathyabhama Amma who was a legal heir at the time of the death of Bindu. It is on the above facts that the court below found that the suit is on the basis of an assertion of title over the property as legal heirs and is not a suit in circumstances arising out of marital relationship. The court held that it is settled law that not every property dispute involving a married person falls within the jurisdiction of the Family Court. Except the 1^st defendant husband, none of the parties are parties to the marriage. True they are relatives. If such a contention is accepted, it would lead to a situation where every case relating to succession will have to be transferred to the Family Court for a decision and the consequence will be that no partition suit can be tried by a civil court of original jurisdiction. That is not the purport of the enactment.

4. Coming to the decisions cited, Leby Issac (supra) was a case where the suit was filed by the husband for recovery of money and compensation and damages from his wife and father-in- law. The court held that it falls fairly under Explanation (d) to Section 7 (1) of the Act. The judgment is clearly distinguishable on facts. Anil Kumar (supra) was a case where while the marriage was subsisting the wife stood as surety for the brother of the husband in a chitty transaction and on default of payment the amount was realised from the wife. The wife filed a suit for realisation of money against the brother of the husband in the Family Court, and this Court held that it is a circumstance arising out of a marital relationship and that the standing as surety for the brother itself w