Family Court’s jurisdiction can’t be extended to suit involving challenge to family ancestry: Karnataka HC

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has said that extending the family court’s jurisdiction to every title suit involving a challenge to a pedigree would dilute the specialised focus of the family court forum and overlap with the settled functions of the civil court.

Justice K Manmadha Rao observed while quashing the order passed by a family court in Bengaluru entertaining a suit seeking to declare a marriage as null and void.

The petition before the high court was filed by a woman and her two children challenging the February 2020 order of family court holding that it has jurisdiction to entertain the suit under section 7(1)(a) and (b) read with the explanation to the Family Courts Act. The controversy pertains to the rights in the estate of a certain JP Narayana Swamy.

The suit before the family court was filed by one Parvathamma in 2017 seeking a declaration that the petitioner woman is not the legally wedded wife of deceased Narayana Swamy, a businessman, and the two children as not his children.

Parvathamma further sought permanent injunction restraining the petitioner woman and her children from claiming any rights in the estate of Narayana Swamy.

During the pendency of the proceedings, Parvathamma died on February 24, 2020, and two of her relatives joined the litigation as her legal representatives.

The petitioner woman and her children contended that the family court lacks jurisdiction to try a suit pertaining to property dispute. On the other hand, the legal representatives contended that the suit falls within the purview of the Family Courts Act.

It was further argued that a narrow construction of the Family Courts Act would defeat the object of establishing family courts for effective resolution of family disputes.

After perusing the material, Justice Manmadha Rao noted that the Family Courts Act is a specialised statute designed to provide a simplified, conciliation-based forum for family-related grievances and cannot be expanded to resolve civil suits.

The court further noted that the suit in the case at hand indicates that the dispute between the parties is purely a civil dispute and has no bearing on any dispute within the family.

“In the present instance, the challenge was not aimed at resolving a marital friction between spouses, but rather at determining the status of individuals to facilitate claims over the estate of the deceased JP Narayanaswamy. Consequently, the dispute takes on the character of a complex civil litigation which is traditionally best suited for the adjudication of a Civil Court,” Justice Manmadha Rao said, while reserving liberty to the legal representatives to file a suit afresh before the competent civil court, if at all they have any grievance.