Madras High Court
R.Vijayalakshmi vs Rani on 20 June, 2022
Author: J. Nisha Banu
Bench: J. Nisha Banu
C.R.P. (PD) No.3780 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
C.R.P. (PD) No.3780 of 2013
and M.P. No. 1 of 2013
R.Vijayalakshmi
W/o Rathinavel .. petitioner/1st defendant
Versus
1.Rani
W/o Mani .. 1st respondent/plaintiff
2.Mani
S/o Govinda Naicker .. 2nd respondent/2nd defendant
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.27 of 2013 on the file of the I
Additional Family Court at Madras.
For Petitioner : Ms.Shase for
Mr.M.Guruprasad
For Respondents : No appearance
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.27 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional Family Court at Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/6 C.R.P. (PD) No.3780 of 2013
2. Brief facts of the case is as follows:-
Suit in O.S.No.27 of 2013 has been filed by the 1 st respondent/plaintiff for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. Pending suit, the petitioner/1st defendant filed the present Civil Revision Petition to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.27 of 2013, on the strength of the decree passed in O.S.No.5009 of 2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner/1st defendant would submit that the Family Court is not having jurisdiction to entertain the present suit and the plaint is barred by limitation. Further, the respondents being the husband and wife, colluded each other and initiated the suit.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Family Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between persons other than parties to the marriage and the property which does not exclusively belongs to the parties to the marriage or either of them. In support of his contention, he relied on the following judgments:-
(i) Decision rendered by the Hon'ble Karnataka Circuit Bench at Gulbarga, in the case of Genu and others Vs. Jalabai and others in M.F.A.No.11990 of 2007 (FC) dated 07.11.2008, wherein it has been held as follows:-
“17.The averments in the plaint are that the plaintiffs are the members of the Hindu undivided family of the 1st defendant, and the suit properties are the ancestral and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6 C.R.P. (PD) No.3780 of 2013 joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant, and that the 1st defendant has no independent right. Therefore, property dispute is not between the parties to the marriage only, it is a dispute between the parties to the marriage as well as between their children. The subject matter of the suit is not a property exclusively belonging to the parties or either of them. It belongs to the joint family, in which the persons other than the parties to the marriage have interest in the said properties. Hence, the Family Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between persons other than parties to the marriage and the property which does not exclusively belongs to the parties to the marriage or either of them.”
(ii) B.Gajendran Vs. Adhilakshmi reported in 2013 (2) CTC 871, the relevant head notes are as follows:-
“Family Courts Act, 1984 (66 of 1984), Section 7 (1) - Suit for Injunction – Maintainability of – Suit before Family Court filed by Wife seeking permanent injunction restraining Husband from alienating suit properties – No right claimed by Wife over said properties – Grievance of Wife that Husband had not maintained herself and her son, held, cannot be made in Suit for injunction filed by Wife – Suit so filed, held, abuse of process of Court – Suit quashed, Civil Revision Petition allowed.”
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6 C.R.P. (PD) No.3780 of 2013 available on record. There is no representation for the respondents.
4. It is the primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Family Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit of this nature. The relief sought for do not fall in any one of the clauses enumerated in Section 7 (1) of the Family Courts Act.
5. Clause (c) of Explanation to Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 deals with property disputes. The dispute should be relating to “property of the parties” or of “either of them”. For the Family Court to exercise its jurisdiction, two conditions must be satisfied. Firstly, the said dispute should be between the parties to the marriage only; and secondly, the dispute should be in respect of the property of the parties or either of them. Both these conditions must be satisfied before the Family Court can take cognizance of a suit or proceedings under the Act, in respect of property disputes. Therefore, it is clear that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try a suit or proceeding claiming a property by persons other than the parties to the marriage.
6. Taking note of the object of the Act, it is clear that the Family Court will have no jurisdiction to entertain a suit or proceeding other than what is stipulated in Explanation to Section 7 of the Act. It is also relevant to point out herein that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6 C.R.P. (PD) No.3780 of 2013 the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and therefore, this Court is of the view that the present suit is a clear abuse of process of Court and the same is liable to be struck off.
7. Accordingly, the suit in O.S.No.27 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional Family Court, Madras is struck off and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
20.06.2022 Jer/nvsri To
1.The learned Judge, I Additional Family Court, Madras
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6 C.R.P. (PD) No.3780 of 2013 J. NISHA BANU, J.
Jer/nvsri C.R.P (PD) No.3780 of 2013 20.06.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6