K.A. ABDUL JALEEL versus T.A. SHAHIDA

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 498 · Decided: 10-04-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
K.A. ABDUL JALEEL 
\I, 
T.A. SHAHIDA 
APRIL IO, 2003 
B 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ!, S.B. SINHA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Family Court Act; Section 7 and Explanation thereunder: 
Property dispute between parties to divorce-Jurisdiction of Family 
C Court-Held: Family courts have been established for resolving marriage/ 
family disputes-Applying the principle of broad construction, jurisdiction of 
such courts should be construed liberally-Hence parties to marriage cannot 
be restricted to parties to subsisting marriage only-Family Court could resolve 
property dispute of parties to divorce-Interpretation of statutes-Rules of 
D construction. 
Words and Phrases: 
'parties to the proceedings '-Meaning of 
Appellant-husband and respondent-wife were married and after the 
E birth of their second child they could not pull on well and the appellant 
pronounced Talaq and divorced the respondent. During continuance of 
their marriage, appellant had allegedly purchased certain properties out 
of the huge cash and the jewellery given as dowry. The appellant by way 
of an agreement promised to transfer the said properties in favour of the 
F respondent in due course. However, it was not done. Respondent filed a 
suit in the Family Court claiming the disputed properties. The Court 
decreed the suit in favour of the respondent, which was affirmed by the 
High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
It was contended for the appellant that the Family Court had no 
G jurisdiction to resolve property dispute by a divorced wife; and that since 
the respondent had already been awarded certain amount in a proceedings 
under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, the 
proceeding under the Family Act was not maintainable. 
H 
On behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that the matter has 
498 
.~ 
K.A. ABDUL JALEEL v. T.A. SHAHIDA 
499 
attained finality with the judgment passed by the Kerala High Court; and A 
that since the appellant did not challenge the same before Supreme Court, 
now he could not be permitted to challenge the jurisdiction of the Family 
Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The Family Court was set up for settlement of family 
disputes. The reason for enactment of the Family Court 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. (502-G( 
B 
c 
1.2. In the instant case, the dispute between the parties to the 
marriage arose out of the properties claimed by one spouse against the 
other. The respondent made a categorical statement to the effect that the 
properties were purchased out of the amount paid in cash or by way of 
ornaments and the appellant was merely a trustee in relation thereto and D 
could not have claimed any independent interest thereupon. It is also 
apparent that whereas the agreement was executed on 17. 09. 1994, the 
appellant pronounced Talaq on 1.11.1995. The wordings 'disputes relating 
to marriage and family affairs and for matters connected therewith' must 
be given a broad construction. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of E 
the Act would clearly go to show that the jurisdiction of the Family Court 
·extends, inter alia, in relation to properties of spouses or of either of them 
which would clearly mean that the properties claimed by the parties 
thereto as a spouse of other; irrespective of the claim whether property is 
claimed during the subsistence of a marriage or otherwise. (502-C-D-El 
F 
1.3. It is well-settled principle of law that the jurisdiction of a Court 
created specially for resolution of disputes of certain kinds should be 
construed liberally. The restricted meaning if ascribed to Explanation (c) 
appended to Section 7 of the Act, would frustrate the object wherefor the 
Family Courts were set up. (503-A( 
G 
Any·um Hasan Siddiqui v. Smt. Sa/ma B., AIR (1992) Allahabad 322, 
distinguished. 
Abdul Ja/eel v. Sahida, (1997( 1 KLT 734 and Smt. P. Jaya/akshmi and 
Anr. v. V. Revichandran and Anr., AIR (1992) AP 190, referred to. 
H 
500 
·.,,,SUPREME .COURT REPORTS 
(2003) 3 S.CR. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No .. 3322 of2003. 
. . 
-
, 
. 
. 
! . " ,• 
' 
- ' 
' 
-
·- ' 
' 
.. 
. 
l 
i • 
' . 
. 
•, '. '-' 
'' 
From the Judgment and Order dated 203.2001 of the Kerala High 
: . 
' 
' . 
-''· ; .. _ 
. -. 
' ,., . . . .. _;' . -
,- ' -
'-
,., . 
·, 
Court in M.F.A. No. 196 of 1999. 
, 
' 
. 
. 
B 
Haris Beera

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.