The Hindu : Family courts can decide property disputes: SC

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Apr 18, 2003

National

National

Family courts can decide property disputes: SC

By J. Venkatesan

NEW DELHI April 17. The Supreme Court has held that family courts are empowered to adjudicate upon any dispute relating to properties of either of the divorced husband or wife.

A three-Judge bench, comprising the Chief Justice V.N. Khare, Justice S.B. Sinha and Justice A.R. Lakshmanan, pointed out that the reason for enacting the Family Courts Act was to set up a court which would deal with disputes concerning the family by adopting an approach radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings.

Further, the Bench said the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act would show that the jurisdiction of the family court extended in relation to properties of spouses or of either of them whether claimed during the subsistence of a marriage or otherwise.

In this case, one K.A. Abdul Jaleel sought divorce from T.A. Shahida of Ernakulam in 1995 by pronouncing "talaq" seven years after marriage.

The wife contended that certain properties were bought by her husband after selling gold ornaments given to her at the time of marriage and hence they belonged to her.

The family court in 1998 ruled that she was the absolute owner of properties mentioned in `Schedule A and 23/100 shares in Schedule B' of the petition. The husband's appeal was dismissed by the Kerala High Court and the present appeal was directed against this judgment in March 2001. The main contention of the appellant was that the family court had no jurisdiction to decide a dispute as regards properties claimed by a divorced wife.

Rejecting the contention and dismissing the appeal, the apex court held that the fact of the matter would clearly show that the dispute arose out of the properties claimed by one spouse against the other. It said the words "disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for matters connected therewith" must be given a broad meaning to include disputes relating to properties also.

The Bench was of the view that the jurisdiction of a court created specially for resolution of matrimonial disputes should be construed liberally. Giving a restricted meaning to the provisions would frustrate the object for which family courts were set up.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National