The High Court dismissed an appeal against a Family Court order refusing jurisdiction to try a defamation claim. The court held that defamation is a tort unrelated to the marital relationship, thus falling outside the Family Court's jurisdiction under the Act.
The appeal is dismissed; the impugned order of the Family Court refusing jurisdiction is upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
“C.R.”
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 26TH MAGHA, 1944 MAT.APPEAL NO. 171 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2019 IN I.A.NO.1070 OF 2019 IN O.P.NO.400 OF 2019 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT,
KANNUR
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
RARIMA.R. AGED 33 YEARS, D/O.RAMADAS.P, RESIDING AT JIJU DALE, KUNNUKUZHI, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, AN PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT RAREERAM, POOKOTHNADA, TALIPARAMBA P.O., TALIPARAMBA AMSOM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670141.
BY ADVS. V.T.MADHAVANUNNI SRI.V.A.SATHEESH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 REJULAL K.V. AGED 35 YEARS, D/O.V.V.DAMODARAN, MANAGER, BANK OF INDIA, MAROTTICHAL BRANCH, MAROTTICHAL P.O., TRISSUR-680014, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT PRASADAM, EDACHERRY, PALLIKUNNU P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670004.
2
Mat.Appeal No.171 of 2021
2 V.V.DAMODARAN,
AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.KARAYAMBU, RESIDING AT EDACHERRY, PALLIKUNNU P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT-670004.
BY ADVS. ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 06.02.2023, THE COURT ON 15.02.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
“C.R.”
Mat.Appeal No.171 of 2021
JUDGMENT
P.G. Ajithkumar, J.
The appellant filed O.P.No.400 of 2019 before the Family Court, Kannur. The relief claimed is damages for defamation. The respondents are her husband and father-in-law. Respondents filed I.A.No.1070 of 2019 contending that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the original petition. The Family Court heard the question of maintainability and allowed I.A.No.1070 of 2019. The petition was accordingly returned to the appellant for being presented before the proper court. Aggrieved thereof the appellant has filed this appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
4
Mat.Appeal No.171 of 2021
was contended that the 1st respondent-husband and the 2nd respondent-father-in-law described the appellant in public as a mentally ill person. Statements were made in the pleadings submitted before the Family Court and uttered in the presence of others. Her reputation and image in the society was thereby tarnished. The appellant would allege that the respondents with a malicious intention hurled such allegations. The appellant based on such pleadings claimed an amount of Rs.50 lakhs as compensation. The question arises for consideration is whether the Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition claiming compensation on account of defamation.
5
Mat.Appeal No.171 of 2021
however, would submit that the petition comes under Explanation (d) to Section 7(1) of the Act and that the order of the Family Court refusing to entertain O.P.No.400 of 2019 is incorrect.
claiming compensation for slanderous statements is not covered by either clause (a) or clause (c), is correct.
“(d) a suit or proceeding for an order or injunction in circumstances arising out a marital relationship.”
If the suit or proceedings is for an order in circumstances arising out of the marital relationship, the Family Court has
6
Mat.Appeal No.171 of 2021
jurisdiction. The allegation of the appellant is that she was depicted as a mentally ill person in front of others by her husband and father-in-law, causing her defamation. The marriage subsists. Such a malicious statement was made in the petition in O.P.No.100 of 2018 filed by the 1st respondent for custody of the child. Slanderous statements were made by the respondents before public officers and in public. It is to be considered whether the petition claiming compensation on account of such statements partakes the nature of a proceedings within the purview of Explanation (d) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act.
SC 2525] the Apex Court considered the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction of the Family Court. It was held that it is now a well-settled principle of law that the jurisdiction of a court created specially for resolution of disputes of certain kinds should be construed liberally and if restricted meaning is ascribed to Explanations appended to Section 7 of the Family Courts Act would frustrate the object wherefor the Family Courts were set up.
7
Mat.Appeal No.171 of 2021
8
Mat.Appeal No.171 of 2021
“13. With the broad propositions of law laid down in the above case, it is necessary to answer the following questions in our quest to identify the forum for adjudicating the lis under consideration. (1) Is there a suit or a proceeding? (2) Is the relief sought for in the suit or proceeding one for an injunction or order? (3) Has the suit or proceeding stemmed from circumstances arising out of a marital relationship? If the answer to the above questions are all in the affirmative, then the Family Court alone has the jurisdiction.”
9
Mat.Appeal No.171 of 2021
occurrences or things which stand around or about, which attend upon, which closely precede or follow, which surround and accompany, which depend upon, or which support or qualify the principal event of a marriage or marital relationship.
10
Mat.Appeal No.171 of 2021
mentally ill person. There was libel as well as slander. The cause of action for the appellant to claim compensation is the injury allegedly caused to her reputation on account of such libel and slander. It is an action for tort. A tort is a civil wrong and that by itself constitutes cause of action. Whether or not she is married to the 1st respondent, the alleged statements made by the respondents if defamatory, is a sufficient casue of action. When the sole reason for claiming compensation is such statements, the marital relationship between the appellant and the 1st respondent does not have any relevance or role in resolving such a dispute. The relationship between the appellant and the respondents would not make any impact in the ultimate decision. In that view of the matter it cannot be said that the dispute involved in O.P.No.400 of 2019 has any nexus to the marital relationship or is a dispute in the circumstances arising out of the marital relationship.
11
Mat.Appeal No.171 of 2021
06.12.2019 does not have any infirmity. The appeal fails and
the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
dkr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court has jurisdiction under Explanation (d) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act to entertain a petition claiming compensation for defamation.
Whether a dispute regarding slanderous statements made by a husband and father-in-law concerning the wife's mental health has a proximate connection with the marital relationship.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K.A.Abdul Jaleel v. T.A.ShahidaReferred¶46
K.A.Abdul Jaleel v. T.A.Shahida [AIR 2003 SC 2525] · Who else cites this
Mini and others v. Sivaraman and anotherExplained¶51
Mini and others v. Sivaraman and another [2020 (5) KHC 629]
Leby Issac v. Leena M.NinanExplained¶55
Leby Issac v. Leena M.Ninan [2005 (3) KLT 665]
Anilkumar v. SheelaExplained¶59
Anilkumar v. Sheela [2011 (4) KLT 120]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
RARIMA.R.
REJULAL K.V.
V.V.DAMODARAN
Anil K.Narendran
P.G. Ajithkumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
