The Family Court retains jurisdiction based on the context of the case, supporting the necessity for appropriate legal remedy.

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P8 order, dated 19.03.2025, of the learned Family Court, Ottappalam, which has found itself to have the jurisdiction to try O.P. No.208 of 2024.

2. The thrust of the argument of the petitioner, as made by his learned counsel - Sri.Santheep Ankarath, is that, going by Ext.P1 Original Suit filed by the 1^st respondent, the cause of action could have been tried only by the learned Munsiff’s Court. He further contended that, when the learned Family Court has found that “none of the parties to this proceedings are parties to marriage and that the relief sought is certainly not a relief pertaining to a marriage or on the basis of the relationship of the parties on the basis of a marriage.” (sic), it could not have then concluded that it has the jurisdiction to try the matter. He prayed that, consequently, this Original Petition be allowed; and Ext.P8 be quashed.

3. However, the learned counsel for respondents 1, 3 and 4 – Sri.T.R. Shaji, submitted that this is not a case where the learned Family Court has arrogated jurisdiction to itself for no reason; but that, it is based on earlier Ext.P6 order of the learned Munsiff Court, before which the suit had been initially laid by his client – the 1^st respondent. He pointed out that, in answer to the averments in the Original Petition, the petitioner had filed Ext.P2 written statement, wherein, he challenged the paternity of his client - the 1^st respondent, thus persuading the learned Munsiff Court to issue Ext.P6 order, finding it to have no jurisdiction to try the matter. He asserted that, both sides accepted Ext.P6 order; and consequently that there was no other option for his client – the 1^st respondent, than to have moved the learned Family Court, in terms of the liberty reserved in the said order. He concluded, arguing that the attempt of the petitioner is to render his client without any remedy; and prayed that this may not be permitted.

4. We have given intent consideration to the rival contentions and have tested them on the touchstone of the various materials on record.

5. Right or wrong, the learned Munsiff’s Court has, in Ext.P6, concluded that it has no jurisdiction to try the Original Suit before it for the reason “since the plaintiff cannot be granted relief without adjudicating the issue of legitimacy, this court does not have jurisdiction to try the suit. I agree that the case does not fall under explanation (c) to section 7 of the Family Courts Act . This is not a suit between the parties to a marriage or one brought by one of the parties to a marriage after the death of the other party in respect of the property of either of them. However, for a suit to fall under explanation (e) to section 7 of the , it is not necessary that it should be between the parties to a marriage. This case falls squarely under explanation (e) to subsection (1) of section 7 of the .” (sic).

6. This order has been accepted by both sides; and the

1^st respondent, consequently, presented the matter before the learned Family Court, to be renumbered as O.P. No.208 of 2024.

7. Interestingly, the petitioner now takes the stand that the matter is not maintainable before the learned Family Court, but only before the learned Munsiff Court. However, as stated above, he concedes that he has accepted Ext.P6 order.

8. It is thus ineluctable that the attempt of the petitioner is to approbate and reprobate Ext.P6 order, which cannot be permitted, particularly when the issue of jurisdiction virtually stands concluded through it; and the validity of which, concededly, remains uncontested.

In the above circumstances, we see no reason to interfere;

and consequently, dismiss this Original Petition.

Sd/-