LEBY ISSAC Vs. LEENA M NINAN ALIAS LINCY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Does a Family Court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit filed by a husband for recovery of money as compensation and damages from his wife and father-in-law What are the requirements to invoke jurisdiction under Section 7(1) read with explanation (d) of the Family Court's Act (the Act for short) What is meant by the expression, 'in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship' used in Explanation (d) to Section 7(1) of the Act Do such 'circumstances' include only those occurrences which transpired during marital relationship alone These are the main questions which arise in this appeal for consideration.

(2.) Facts in this case briefly, are as follows: Appellant filed a suit before the Family Court against his wife, father-in-law and alleged adulterer of his wife as defendants 1 to 3. They are respondents 1 to 3 in this appeal. Relief sought for in the suit is to recover Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation and damages from respondents 1 and 2 with costs. As per the averments in the suit, appellant married first respondent as per religious rites in 1997. But, after marriage, appellant came to know that his wife was leading illicit relationship with third respondent prior to the marriage and even thereafter. They are living in adultery. This fact was known to his wife's parents, but they suppressed this fact and committed fraud on appellant in solemnizing the marriage.

(3.) It is further averred in the plaint that all the efforts taken by appellant to correct first respondent were futile. His wife joined her parents who are employed at Muscat. Appellant filed O.P. No. 336 of 2001 for dissolution of marriage before Family Court on the ground of adultery. The case is still pending for disposal. Appellant had spent Rs. 2.5 lakhs for conducting the marriage itself, but his wife refused to cohabit with him and discharge marital obligations in view of her illicit relationship with the 3rd respondent. All these resulted in pain and suffering to appellant and family which are unascertainable in terms of money. Respondents 1 and 2 are therefore liable to pay compensation and damages. Appellant limited his claim to Rs. 10 lakhs and filed this suit for a decree allowing him to recover the amount as compensation and damages from respondents 1 and 2 and their assets with costs. These are in short, the averments in the plaint.