KAMALASANAN Vs. VALSALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner is the defendant. Respondent (Plaintiff) filed the suit for declaration that the defendant, her father is bound to conduct her marriage and also for a mandatory injunction directing him to provide sufficient funds for the marriage. She filed application for interim injunction to restrain the defendant from collecting the retirement benefit from his employer. Interim injunction was granted on 30-6-1992. Revision petitioner did not file any appeal against it. But he filed review petition. That was rejected by the impugned order.

(2.) Contention of the revision petitioner is that the Munsiff having found that he has no jurisdiction to try the suit ought to have allowed the review petition and dismissed the injunction application. Learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that the Munsiff was not justified in holding that he has no jurisdiction to try the suit as the reliefs sought in the suit fail outside S.7 of the Family Courts Act.

(3.) The point that arises for consideration is whether the Munsiff was justified in holding that the Family Court alone is vested with jurisdiction to try the suit. Family Courts do not exclude the jurisdiction of civil court in all respects. S.7 of the Family Courts Act makes the position clear. S.7 specifically mentions the limited area of the Family Courts. It has no power to transverse beyond its specified sphere of jurisdiction. Any matter not covered by S.7 would definitely come within civil court's jurisdiction and merely because the relief sought in the plaint relates to marriage its jurisdiction is not taken off. S.7 bars jurisdiction of the civil courts in the following matters: