Advocates:
S.. UDAYA KUMAR SAGAR

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 4

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 3322 of 2003

PETITIONER:

K.A. Abdul Jaleel

RESPONDENT:

T.A. Shahida

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/04/2003

BENCH:

CJI., S.B. Sinha & AR. Lakshmanan.

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

[Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.8996 of 2001]

S.B. SINHA, J :

Leave granted.

Whether the Family Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any

question relating to the properties of divorced parties arises for consideration

in this appeal. The said question arises out of a judgment and order dated

20.03.2001 passed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dismissing

an appeal from an order passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam, dated

22.07.1998 in O.P. No.343 of 1996.

The parties to this appeal were married on 03.01.1988. A female

child was born out their wedlock on 11.10.1988. Allegedly, after the birth of

the second child, owing to deterioration in the health of the respondent

herein, the relationship of the parties became strained. The respondent

contended that at the time of marriage, a large amount in cash as also gold

ornaments were given. From the cash amount the appellant herein

purchased a property described in Schedule ’A’ of the petition on

01.02.1988. The balance amount was kept by the appellant. He allegedly

further sold the gold ornaments of the respondent and out of the sale

proceeds he purchased the property described in Schedule ’B’ of the

petition.

In respect of properties an agreement marked Exhibit A1 was

executed by the parties, in terms whereof it was agreed that the properties

purchased from the aforesaid amount will be transferred in the name of the

respondent by the appellant. The appellant herein pronounced Talaq on

01.11.1995 after his relationship with the respondent became strained. In

terms of the said agreement dated 17.09.1994, the respondent filed a suit

marked O.S. No.85 of 1995 in the Family Court on 08.12.1995. The

appellant in his written statement alleged that the said agreement was signed

by him under threat and coercion and further contended that several

documents purported to have been executed by him in support thereof were

also obtained by applying force.

Both the parties examined themselves as also proved various

documents in the said suit before the Family Court.

The Family Court by a judgment and order dated 22.07.1998 decreed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 4

the suit in favour of the respondent herein upon arriving at a finding that she

was the absolute owner of the Schedule ’A’ property as also 23/100 shares in

the Schedule ’B’ property.

Aggrieved thereby and dissatisfied therewith, the appellant preferred

an appeal before the High Court which was marked as MFA No.196 of

1999. By reason of the impugned judgment dated 20.03.2001, the said

appeal has been dismissed.

Mr. Haris Beeran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant, would submit that having regard to the provisions contained in

Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the Family Court had no

jurisdiction to decide a dispute as regards properties claimed by a divorced

wife. The learned counsel would urge that the jurisdiction exercisable by

any Family Court being between the parties to a marriage which would

mean parties to a subsisting marriage. In support of the said contention

strong reliance has been placed on a judgment of a Division Bench of the

Allahabad High Court in Amjum Hasan Siddiqui vs. Smt.Salma B. [AIR

1992 (Allahabad) 322] and Ponnavolu Sasidar vs. Sub-Registrar, Hayatnagar

and Others [AIR 1992 (A.P.) 198].

Mr. T.L.V. Iyer, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent, on the other hand, would contend that the matter is covered by

an inter-parties judgment passed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High

Court which is since reported in [1997 (1) KLT 734]. As the appellant

herein did not question the correctness of the said