Case: R. Kasthuri and Ors Vs. M. Kasthuri and Ors

1. Leave granted. The Appellants - Plaintiffs had instituted a civil suit (O.S. No. 222 of 1998) in the City Civil Court at Madras seeking, inter alia, following reliefs: A. Declaring that the first Plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Gunaseelan S/o. V.M. Aalai. B. Declaring that the Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the legitims to children of the first Plaintiff and late Gunaseelan S/o. Alai. C. Declaring that the first Plaintiff as wife, the Plaintiffs 2 to 4 as children and the 3rd Defendant as mother are the legal heirs of late Gunaseelan S/o. V.M. Aalai. 2. The suit was filed in a situation where the legal heirship obtained by the Plaintiffs - Appellants was sought to be challenged by the Defendants 1 and 2 who claimed to be the wife and son of late Gunaseelan whom the Plaintiff No. 1 also claimed to be her husband. 3. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court which decree was affirmed in First Appeal. The High Court, in Second Appeal, took the view that having regard to the nature of the suit and the reliefs claimed the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit which lay within the domain of the Family Court constituted under the Family Courts Act, 1984. (hereinafter referred to as the Act) Accordingly, on the aforesaid basis the decree has been reversed. 4. The objects and reasons behind the enactment of the Act which is reproduced hereinbelow would suggest that the reason for constitution of family courts is for settlement of family disputes, if possible, by pre-litigation proceedings. If the dispute cannot be settled the same has to be adjudicated by adoption of a process which is different from what is adopted in ordinary civil proceedings. Statement of objects and reasons: Several associations of women, other organisations and individuals have urged, from time-to-time, that Family Courts be set up for the settlement of family disputes, where emphasis should be laid on conciliation and achieving socially desirable results and adherence to rigid rules of procedure and evidence should be eliminated. The Law Commission in its 59th report (1974) had also stressed that in dealing with disputes concerning the family the court ought to adopt an approach radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings and that it should make reasonable efforts at settlement before the commencement of the trial. The Code of Civil Procedure was amended in 1976 to provide for a special procedure to be adopted in suits or proceedings relating to matters concerning the family. However, not much use has been made by the courts in adopting this conciliatory procedure and the courts continue to deal with family disputes in the same manner as other civil matters and the same adversary approach prevails. The need was, therefore, felt, in the public interest, to establish Family Courts for speedy settlement of family disputes. 5. Sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Act spell out a special procedure. The other provisions of the Act i.e. Section 4(4) would indicate that a major objective behind the enactment of the Act is to have a specialized body to preserve and save the institution of marriage. 6. In the present case, there is no family dispute between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. The dispute arose after the demise of Gunaseelan to whom both the Plaintiff No. 1 and the Defendant No. 1 claim to be married. The other Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 2 are the children claimed to be born out of the respective marriages. 7. The above would indicate that the dispute between the parties is purely a civil dispute and has no bearing on any dispute within a family which needs to be resolved by a special procedure as provided under the Act. No issue with regard to the institution of marriage and the need to preserve the same also arises in the present case. That apart, the dispute between the parties can only be resolved on the basis of evidence to be tendered by the parties, admissibility of which has to be adjudged within the four corners of the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In such a proceeding it would be clearly wrong to deprive the parties of the benefit of the services of counsels. 8. Taking into account all that has been said above we are of the view that the High Court was not correct in holding the suit filed by the Plaintiffs - Appellants to be not maintainable in law.

Decision:
1[ds]4. The objects and reasons behind the enactment of the Act which is reproduced hereinbelow would suggest that the reason for constitution of family courts is for settlement of family disputes, if possible, by pre-litigation proceedings. If the dispute cannot be settled the same has to be adjudicated by adoption of a process which is different from what is adopted in ordinary civil proceedings5. Sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Act spell out a special procedure. The other provisions of the Act i.e. Section 4(4) would indicate that a major objective behind the enactment of the Act is to have a specialized body to preserve and save the institution of marriage6. In the present case, there is no family dispute between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. The dispute arose after the demise of Gunaseelan to whom both the Plaintiff No. 1 and the Defendant No. 1 claim to be married. The other Plaintiffs and Defendant No. 2 are the children claimed to be born out of the respective marriages7. The above would indicate that the dispute between the parties is purely a civil dispute and has no bearing on any dispute within a family which needs to be resolved by a special procedure as provided under the Act. No issue with regard to the institution of marriage and the need to preserve the same also arises in the present case. That apart, the dispute between the parties can only be resolved on the basis of evidence to be tendered by the parties, admissibility of which has to be adjudged within the four corners of the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In such a proceeding it would be clearly wrong to deprive the parties of the benefit of the services of counsels8. Taking into account all that has been said above we are of the view that the High Court was not correct in holding the suit filed by the Plaintiffs - Appellants to be not maintainable in law.