Kerala High Court
Narayanan Kamalasanan vs Valsala on 3 March, 1994
Equivalent citations: II(1995)DMC303, 1995 A I H C 617, (1995) MATLR 150, (1994) 1 KER LT 737, (1994) 3 CURCC 659, (1995) 2 DMC 303, (1995) 1 HINDULR 566, (1994) 2 CIVLJ 388
JUDGMENT M.M. Pareed Pillay, J.
1. Revision petitioner is the defendant. Respondent (Plaintiff) filed the suit for declaration that the defendant her father is bound to conduct her marriage and also for a mandatory injunction directing him to provide sufficient funds for the marriage. She filed an application for interim injunction to restrain the defendant from collecting the retirement benefit from his employer. Interim injunction was granted on 30.6.1992. Revision petitioner did not file any appeal against it. But he filed revision petition. That was rejected by the impugned order.
2. Contention of the revision petitioner is that the Munsiff having found that he has no jurisdiction to try the suit ought to have allowed the review petition and dismissed the injunction application. Learned Counsel for the respondent pointed out that the Munsiff was not justifed in holding that he has no jursdiction to try the suit as the reliefs sought in the suit fall outside Section 7 of the Family Courts Act.
3. The point that arises for consideration is whether the Munsiff was justified in holding that the Family Courts alone is vested with jurisdiction to try the suit. Family Courts do not exclude the jurisdiction of Civil Court in all respects. Section 7 of the Family Courts Act makes the position clear, Section 7 specifically mentions the limited area of the Family Courts. It has no power to traverse beyond its specified sphere of jurisdiction. Any matter not covered by Section 7 would definitely come within Civil Court's jurisdiction and merely because the relief sought in the plaint relates to marriage its jurisdiction is not taken off. Section 7 bars jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in the following matters.
(a) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage for a decree of nullity of marriage or restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage;
(b) A suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person;
(c) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them;
(d) a suit or proceeding for an order or injunction in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship;
(e) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the legitimacy of any person;
(f) a suit or proceeding for maintenance; (g) a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of or access to any minor.
The enumerated matters cannot be tried before the Civil Court. The suit for declaration that the revision petitioner is bound to conduct the marriage of his daughter and also for a mandatory injunction to provide her necessary funds for the marriage would not come under any of the aforesaid matters. That being the position the Munsiff erred in holding that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction in trying the suit. That finding cannot be sustained.
4. Against the order of injunction revision petitioner could have filed appeal. Without doing so he filed the review petition alleging that the Munsiff lacked jurisdiction to grant injunction. As the Munsiff has jurisdiction to try the suit review petition is devoid of merit.
C.R.P. is dismissed. No costs.