A specialized family forum does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate a suit for the declaration of matrimonial status or the validity of a marriage if one of the spouses is deceased. Such disputes, being fundamentally about property rights, must be adjudicated by a court of general civil jurisdiction.

"CR"

JUDGMENT

Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

This Mat. Appeal preferred at the instance of the petitioner in O.P.No.18 of 2018 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, impugns the order dated 08.12.2025 in I.A.No.4 of 2025 in O.P.No.18 of 2018. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this Mat. Appeal are as follows:

The O.P.No.18 of 2018 before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, was filed by the appellant before us claiming that she is the wife of late Sasikumar. It was her case before the court below that the 1^st respondent was a lady having some illicit relationship with the deceased Sasikumar and that respondents 2 and 3 are the children born in that illicit relationship. The prayers in the Original Petition were threefold, namely (1) to declare that she is the legally wedded wife of Sasikumar; (2) to partition the petition scheduled properties and (3) allow her to realise the mesne profits from the scheduled properties.

2. It would appear that initially, the respondents were set ex-parte. However, immediately after the affidavit-in-chief was filed by the appellant, the respondents appeared before the court and filed an application for setting aside the order that set them ex-parte. In the said application filed under Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC, the respondents also challenged the maintainability of the Original Petition itself, contending that the provisions of Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 would not come to the rescue of the appellant herein and that the court below ought to return the Original Petition to the appellant for presentation before the civil court of competent jurisdiction.

3. The court below, after hearing the parties, found force in the contention of the respondents herein and allowed their application and directed return of the Original Petition to the appellant for presentation before the civil court having jurisdiction. As already noticed, it is being aggrieved by the said order that the appellant is before us through this Mat. Appeal.

4. We heard Sri. Kishore D., the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Arun V.G., the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

5. Sri. Kishore D, the learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that the provisions of Section 7 of the Family Court Act, 1984 are unambiguously clear when they state that the Family Court shall have jurisdiction inter alia in suits and proceedings where a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person is sought for. Distinguishing the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kasthuri R. and others v. M. Kasthuri and others [2018 KHC 2535] and placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Balram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav [2016 KHC 6310], it is the submission of Sri. Kishore that even in cases where the Original Petition instituted before the Family Court is at a point in time when a person alleged to be the husband is no more, the Family Court will have jurisdiction to decide the issue of validity of the marriage or matrimonial status of the petitioner before it. He also takes us through the provisions of Sections 8 and 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, to contend that inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the Family Court, in the matters expressly stated in Section 7 of the 1984 Act, has been carved out from the jurisdiction otherwise exercised by the civil courts, the court below erred in relegating the appellant to the civil court of competent jurisdiction.

6. Per contra, it is the submission of Sri. Arun V. G., the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, that the impugned order of the court below does not require any interference. Pointing to the decision in Kasthuri R. (supra) that was followed by this Court in Brinda and others v. Muktha K.N. [2022 (5) KHC 719], he would submit that a perusal of the statement of objects and reasons of the Family Courts Act, 1984 would clearly bring out the intention behind the introduction of the special provisions