1991 (2) TMI 418 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court Retains Jurisdiction Over Joint Family Property Suit, Questions Raised on Family Court Authority

Kanak Vinod Mehta Versus Vinod Dulerai Mehta

Kanak Vinod Mehta Versus Vinod Dulerai Mehta - TMI Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of Family Court vs. High Court under the Family Courts Act, 1984.2. Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984.3. Whether the suit involves joint family property and the karta thereof.4. Applicability of the Indian Evidence Act in Family Court proceedings.5. Scope of the Family Courts Act concerning guardianship, custody, or access to minors.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of Family Court vs. High Court under the Family Courts Act, 1984:The primary issue addressed is whether the Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the suit filed by the plaintiff, thereby ousting the High Court's jurisdiction. The question referred to the Division Bench was whether the Family Court has jurisdiction over the suit by virtue of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and if so, whether the High Court ceases to have jurisdiction and the suit stands transferred to the Family Court.The court examined the relevant provisions of the Family Courts Act, particularly Sections 7, 8, and 20. Section 7 outlines the jurisdiction of Family Courts, while Section 8 excludes the jurisdiction of district courts and subordinate civil courts in areas where a Family Court is established. Section 20 states that the provisions of the Act have an overriding effect.The court concluded that the High Court's jurisdiction on its Original Side is not ousted by the Family Courts Act. It relied on the Full Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in Mary Thomas' case, which held that the High Court continues to exercise jurisdiction vested in it under the Letters Patent and other laws, notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act.2. Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984:The court analyzed the definitions and provisions of the Family Courts Act, including the definition of 'District Court' and the exclusion of jurisdiction under Sections 7 and 8. It noted that the Act does not define 'District Court' to include the High Court. The court emphasized that a statute should not be construed as taking away the jurisdiction of courts in the absence of clear and unambiguous language to that effect, especially when it concerns the jurisdiction of a superior court like the High Court.3. Whether the suit involves joint family property and the karta thereof:The court noted that the suit involved joint family property and the karta thereof, which is not a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or either of them. Therefore, the suit did not fall within the Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. This contention was upheld, and it was concluded that the suit would remain in the High Court.4. Applicability of the Indian Evidence Act in Family Court proceedings:The court expressed concerns about the provisions in the Family Courts Act that evidence is not required to be taken in accordance with the Indian Evidence Act, a full transcript of oral evidence is not required, and legal representation is not ordinarily obtainable. These provisions could pose difficulties in certain cases, but the court did not delve deeply into this issue as it was not directly before them.5. Scope of the Family Courts Act concerning guardianship, custody, or access to minors:The court noted that Clause (g) of the Explanation to Section 7(1) mentions suits or proceedings in relation to the guardianship, custody, or access to minors. Such reliefs are not sought only in matrimonial causes but also under other statutes like the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the Indian Lunacy Act, 1912, and the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. It was unclear whether Parliament intended that proceedings under these statutes should also be filed before the Family Court if instituted by a family member of the minor.Conclusion:The court answered the preliminary issue in the negative, concluding that the High Court's jurisdiction is not ousted by the Family Courts Act, 1984. The suit was directed to be placed before the learned single Judge for disposal in the ordinary course.