Facts in this case briefly,
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 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.
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 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 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.
Jurisdiction-
Lower court held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit involved in this case.
According to lower court, suit of the nature filed in this case will not be covered by
Explanation (d) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act. The court below found that cause
of action set forth in the suit is the alleged misrepresentation on the part of the
respondents, the defiant and wayward attitude of the first defendant in discharging their
marital obligations culminating in mental agony and troubles to plaintiff/appellant and
hence the suit cannot be treated as a suit or proceeding for an order of injunction in
circumstances arising out of a marital relationship. Plaint was returned to appellant for
presentation before proper court and hence this appeal.
A reading of Section 7 of the Act shows that it provides for jurisdiction of Family court to
entertain certain class of suits and proceedings. As per the said section, a Family Court shall
have, and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any district court or any subordinate
civil court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of
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 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.
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 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 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.
Jurisdiction-
Lower court held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit involved in this case.
According to lower court, suit of the nature filed in this case will not be covered by
Explanation (d) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act. The court below found that cause
of action set forth in the suit is the alleged misrepresentation on the part of the
respondents, the defiant and wayward attitude of the first defendant in discharging their
marital obligations culminating in mental agony and troubles to plaintiff/appellant and
hence the suit cannot be treated as a suit or proceeding for an order of injunction in
circumstances arising out of a marital relationship. Plaint was returned to appellant for
presentation before proper court and hence this appeal.
A reading of Section 7 of the Act shows that it provides for jurisdiction of Family court to
entertain certain class of suits and proceedings. As per the said section, a Family Court shall
have, and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any district court or any subordinate
civil court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of
