When property dispute between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law will come within jurisdiction of family court?
aspect to be considered while deciding the question as to
whether it is a suit or a proceedings instituted seeking an
order or injunction in the circumstances arising out of the
marital relationship, is the cause of the lis itself and not the
parties to the lis. Prime consideration should be as to
whether the cause of the lis has got any bearing with the
marital relationship. An objective assessment should be
made as to whether the cause has got any stem from the
circumstances arising out of the marital relationship. In
other words, whether the cause should have been existed
but for the marital relationship, shall be the basis of the
assessment. If the answer is on the positive, definitely the
lis can be categorized as one not coming within the scope of
explanation (d). But if the cause of action is emerging out
of any circumstances related to the matrimonial
relationship and the same could not have existed
independently, then the suit can be maintained before the
Family Court, and it will fall under Explanation (d) to
Section F(1) of the Act.
When the facts of the case at hand is analyzed
based on the above said parameters, it is evident that the
claim of the 1st respondent that she paid money to the 1st
appellant by disposing her own property for discharging
the bank liability of the mother-in-law, on the basis of a
specific understanding that the B-schedule property will be
assigned into her name, has got a clear stem arising out of a
circumstances connected to a marital relationship. Since
the alleged promise was not complied with and since the 1st
appellant had assigned the properties to her sons, the 1st
respondent is claiming declaration of title over the property
contained in B-schedule. The alleged transaction of the 1st
respondent selling her own property for discharging her
mother-in-law's debt on the basis that the B-schedule will be
assigned to her name, happens only because of the
matrimonial relationship of the parties as daughter-in-law
and mother-in-law. But for the marriage of the 1st
respondent with the son of the 1st appellant, such an alleged
transaction would not have taken place. Therefore the
cause of action agitated against the mother-in-law had
arisen from circumstance connected with the matrimonial
relationship . Whether the parties to the marriage are
parties to the lis, becomes immaterial in such
circumstances. Therefore considering the wider
interpretation to be given to the ambit and scope of the
explanation contained under clause (d), as guided by
binding precedents of this court and the hon'ble Supreme
Court, we are persuaded to hold that the cause agitated is
emerging from circumstances arising out of marital
relationship. It is rightly observed by the Family Court that
the alleged contract between the 1st respondent and the 1st
appellant is only due to the marriage of the 1st respondent
with the son of the 1st appellant. The entire transaction
took place after the marriage. Therefore it is found that the
dispute will squarely come within the purview of
explanation (d) to section 7(1) of the Act.
The Family Court observed that, the question as
to whether the transaction is a valid transaction, where
there is any bar of limitation, whether the relief claimed
under the other enactment can be claimed in the main
petition itself etc. are matters which need to be adjudicated
while contesting the suit. We perfectly agree with such
observations and hold that the original petition instituted
before the Family Court is maintainable before that court.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
Dated; 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015
Mat.Appeal.No. 999 of 2015 ()
JANAKI AMMA,
Vs
RENUKA SADANANDAN,
Citation:AIR 2016 kerala 75
https://www.lawweb.in/2016/05/when-property-dispute-between-mother-in.html
