Whether Maintenance Of Parents And Senior Citizens Act Can Be Used as tool in Property Disputes Between Siblings?

 The Act is one enacted to ensure the proper protection and

maintenance of senior citizens. It cannot be allowed to be used as a

tool in property disputes among siblings. The substantial right of the 3rd

respondent which is sought to be enforced by recourse to the Act is the

right to be maintained and protected by her children. In view of the

specific contention of the petitioner that she had never refused to do

so and that Exhibit      P1 is an agreement recorded without her

understanding the contents of the same, I am of the opinion that

  
interests of justice will be met by directing that the petitioner shall look

after her mother.

      In the result, Exhibit    P1 is set aside. It is directed that the

petitioner shall also have the responsibility of looking after her mother.

If the 3rd respondent agrees to go and reside with the petitioner, she

shall be looked after well and expenses shall be met by the petitioner.

If the 3rd respondent is not desirous of going and staying with the

petitioner, the petitioner will pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five

thousand) to the 3rd respondent instead of Rs.500/-per month as

agreed in Exhibit P1 on or before 10th day of every month commencing

from November, 2016 towards the personal expenses of the mother. If

any default is committed by the petitioner in paying maintenance as

directed above, the 3rd respondent will be free to approach the Tribunal

afresh.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                          PRESENT:

          MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016

                WP(C).No. 9108 of 2014 (K)
               

          MAVILA SATHI,
Vs

       STATE OF KERALA
         

Print Page

When property dispute between mother-in-law and daughter-in-law will come within jurisdiction of family court?

We are of the considered opinion that the crucial

aspect to be considered while deciding the question as to

whether it is a suit or a proceedings instituted seeking an

order or injunction in the circumstances arising out of the

marital relationship, is the cause of the lis itself and not the

parties to the lis.     Prime consideration should be as to

whether the cause of the lis has got any bearing with the

marital relationship.     An objective assessment should be

made as to whether the cause has got any stem from the

circumstances arising out of the marital relationship.        In

other words, whether the cause should have been existed

but for the marital relationship, shall be the basis of the

assessment. If the answer is on the positive, definitely the

lis can be categorized as one not coming within the scope of


explanation (d). But if the cause of action is emerging out

of     any     circumstances related to    the   matrimonial

relationship and the same could not have existed

independently, then the suit can be maintained before the

Family Court, and it will fall under Explanation (d) to

Section F(1) of the Act.
 When the facts of the case at hand is analyzed

based on the above said parameters, it is evident that the

claim of the 1st respondent that she paid money to the 1st

appellant by disposing her own property for discharging

the bank liability of the mother-in-law, on the basis of a

specific understanding that the B-schedule property will be

assigned into her name, has got a clear stem arising out of a

circumstances connected to a marital relationship. Since

the alleged promise was not complied with and since the 1st

appellant had assigned the properties to her sons, the 1st

respondent is claiming declaration of title over the property

contained in B-schedule.    The alleged transaction of the 1st

respondent selling her own property for discharging her

mother-in-law's debt on the basis that the B-schedule will be


assigned to her name, happens only because of the

matrimonial relationship of the parties as daughter-in-law

and mother-in-law.        But for the marriage of the 1st

respondent with the son of the 1st appellant, such an alleged

transaction would not have taken place.        Therefore the

cause of action agitated against the mother-in-law had

arisen from circumstance connected with the matrimonial

relationship .      Whether the parties to the marriage are

parties        to the lis, becomes     immaterial  in    such

circumstances.       Therefore    considering   the    wider

interpretation to be given to the ambit and scope of the

explanation contained under clause (d), as guided by

binding precedents of this court and the hon'ble Supreme

Court, we are persuaded to hold that the cause agitated is

emerging from circumstances arising out of marital

relationship. It is rightly observed by the Family Court that

the alleged contract between the 1st respondent and the 1st

appellant is only due to the marriage of the 1st respondent

with the son of the 1st appellant.    The entire transaction

took place after the marriage. Therefore it is found that the


dispute will squarely come            within the purview   of

explanation (d) to section 7(1) of the Act.

         The Family Court observed that, the question as

to whether the transaction is a valid transaction, where

there is any bar of limitation, whether the relief claimed

under the other enactment can be claimed in the main

petition itself etc. are matters which need to be adjudicated

while contesting the suit.       We perfectly agree with such

observations and hold that the original petition instituted

before the Family Court is maintainable before that court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                                        PRESENT:

                           MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
                                                               &
                          MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

   Dated;              15TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015
                                           Mat.Appeal.No. 999 of 2015 ()
                                               

         JANAKI AMMA, Vs RENUKA SADANANDAN, 

Citation:AIR 2016 kerala 75

Print Page

Supreme Court: Family court has jurisdiction to decide any dispute between husband and wife relating to property given before or after their marriage

In our opinion, the courts have not gone into the question in its correct perspective. The trial court proceeded to negative the claim of the respondent-wife by holding that the court had no jurisdiction to deal with the property rights of the parties and gave no opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective claims. The finding of the trial court clearly overlooked the provisions of Sections 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act which unmistakably vests the jurisdiction in the court to pass an order, at the time of passing a decree in a matrimonial cause. In respect of the property presented, at or about the time of marriage, which may belong jointly to the husband and the wife. The learned single Judge also fell in complete error while concurring with the view of the trial court to say that there was no evidence on the record to show that the property claimed by the wife was presented to her at the time of her marriage. The learned single judge failed to take notice of the deposition of the respondent in that behalf. Moreover, the property which is given to the wife at the time of marriage only. It includes the property given to the parties before of after given to the parties before or after marriage also. So long as it is relatable to the marriage. the expression "at or about the time of marriage" has to be properly construed to includes such property which is given at the time of marriage as also the property given before or after marriage to the parties to become their "their property". Implying thereby that the property can be tracked to have connection with the marriage. All such property is covered by section 27 of the Act.

Supreme Court of India

Balkrishna Ramchandra Kadam vs Sangeeta Balkrishna Kadam on 4 September, 1997

Bench: A.S. Anand, K. Venkataswami

  Citation:1997(3) MHLJ(SC)597

Print Page