Family Courts Can Adjudicate Matrimonial Disputes Only Where Both Parties To Marriage Are Alive: Kerala High Court
The Court held that disputes arising after the death of a person to whom rival parties claim marital status do not constitute "family disputes" within the meaning of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and must be adjudicated by a civil court of competent jurisdiction.
Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, Justice Preeta A.K., Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that adjudication of family disputes by the specialised forum constituted under the Family Courts Act, 1984, can be undertaken only where both parties to the marriage are alive and are before the Court.
The Court further held that disputes arising after the death of a person to whom rival parties claim marital status retain the character of civil disputes and are not required to be adjudicated by a Family Court.
The Court was hearing a matrimonial appeal challenging an order of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which had directed the return of an original petition for presentation before a competent civil court after holding that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings.
A Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. observed: "As observed by the Court in Kasthuri R. (supra), objects and reasons behind the enactment of the Act would suggest that the reason for constitution of Family Courts is for settlement of family disputes, if possible, by pre-litigation proceedings and if the dispute cannot be settled, the same has to be adjudicated by the adoption of a process which is different from what is adopted in ordinary civil proceedings. Read together with the main objective behind the enactment of the Statute which is to preserve and save the institution of marriage, it is clear that an adjudication of family disputes by the specialised Forum under the Family Courts Act can be only in cases where both the parties to the marriage are alive and are made parties to the lis requiring adjudication by the Forum."
Advocates D. Kishore appeared for the appellant, while Advocate Arun V.G. appeared for the respondents.
Background
The appellant instituted an original petition before the Family Court claiming that she was the legally wedded wife of a deceased person. She sought a declaration regarding her marital status, partition of the scheduled properties and recovery of mesne profits from those properties.
The respondents entered an appearance and challenged the maintainability of the original petition. It was contended that the dispute did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Family Court under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and that the petition ought to be presented before a civil court having competent jurisdiction.
Accepting the objection, the Family Court directed the return of the original petition for presentation before the appropriate civil court. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred the present matrimonial appeal.
Before the High Court, the appellant contended that Explanation (b) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act expressly confers jurisdiction on Family Courts to entertain suits and proceedings seeking declarations regarding the validity of a marriage or the matrimonial status of any person. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Balram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav (2016).
The respondents, on the other hand, relied upon the decisions in Kasthuri R. v. M. Kasthuri (2018) and Brinda v. Muktha K.N. (2022), contending that the Family Courts Act was intended to deal only with family disputes arising in the context of subsisting relationships and not disputes arising after the death of one of the alleged spouses.
Court's Observations
The High Court found merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondents. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kasthuri R. v. M. Kasthuri (2018), the Court observed that where a dispute arises after the death of the person to whom rival parties claim to be married, such a dispute cannot be viewed as a family dispute requiring adjudication by the Family Court.
The Court observed: "It is apparent from a reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kasthuri R. (supra) that where a dispute arises after the death of the person to whom both the parties to the dispute claim to be married, that dispute cannot be viewed as a 'family dispute' which requires to be adjudicated by the Family Court. Such a dispute would retain the character of a civil dispute simpliciter that has to be adjudicated by a civil court of competent jurisdiction."
Examining the pleadings in the original petition, the Court found that the principal object of the proceedings was to secure rights in the properties of the deceased person and that the declaration regarding marriage was sought only to support the claim for a share in those properties.
The Bench noted that Explanation (b) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act refers to suits and proceedings seeking declarations regarding the validity of a marriage or the matrimonial status of a person. According to the Court, the legislature deliberately used those expressions to cover disputes connected with a subsisting marital relationship.
The Court observed: "We also find that the legislature has used the words 'declaration of validity of a marriage' together with 'matrimonial status' in Explanation (b) to S.7 (1) with the intention to carve out only disputes connected with a subsisting relationship of marriage ie. a relationship in praesenti, for adjudication before a specialised Forum dealing with family disputes."
The Bench further held that disputes arising when one of the parties to the marriage is no longer alive cannot be brought before a forum specifically constituted to adjudicate disputes arising out of existing family relationships.
The Court observed: "A dispute that arises at a point in time when one of the parties to the marriage, whether actual or alleged, is no more, cannot be presented before a Forum that is tasked with adjudicating disputes that arise in a subsisting relationship between live persons."
The Court also considered the statement of objects and reasons underlying the Family Courts Act, 1984 and noted that the statute emphasises conciliation, settlement of family disputes and preservation of the institution of marriage through procedures different from ordinary civil proceedings.
Distinguishing the decision in Balram Yadav v. Fulmaniya Yadav (2016), the Court held that the said judgment did not apply to the facts of the present case because the dispute before it arose after the death of the person whose marital status was sought to be relied upon.
Conclusion
Holding that the dispute raised by the appellant was not a family dispute capable of adjudication by the Family Court and that the Family Court had rightly directed return of the original petition for presentation before the competent civil court, the High Court dismissed the matrimonial appeal.
The Court, however, clarified that while computing limitation in any proceedings instituted before the civil court, the period spent by the appellant prosecuting the original petition before the Family Court and the appeal before the High Court shall be excluded.
Cause Title: Renuka Kumari v. Pradeep Kumar & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:41503)
Appearances
Appellant: Advocates D. Kishore, Meera Gopinath, R. Muralekrishnan and Anant Kishore
Respondents: Advocates Arun V.G., R. Harikrishnan and Neeraj Narayan