The Himachal Pradesh High Court considered the question of whether a Family Court loses jurisdiction to decide disputes relating to matrimonial property once a decree of divorce has already been granted. The issue arose from an appeal filed by a woman whose application seeking return of her stridhan, gifts, and other matrimonial articles had been dismissed by the Family Court on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction after the divorce decree was passed. The High Court examined the legal framework governing Family Courts and matrimonial proceedings and held that the Family Court continues to have jurisdiction over such property disputes even after the dissolution of marriage, and that the passing of a divorce decree does not automatically bar adjudication of pending or independent claims relating to matrimonial property.
The facts before the Court showed that the appellant had obtained an ex parte decree of divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. During the pendency of the divorce proceedings, she had filed an application under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking return of her stridhan and other articles. The Family Court dismissed this application, reasoning that since the divorce decree had already been granted without any directions regarding property, it could no longer entertain the claim. This approach was challenged before the High Court, which found the reasoning of the Family Court to be legally unsustainable.
The High Court observed that the purpose of establishing Family Courts is to provide a specialised forum for resolving all disputes arising out of matrimonial relationships, including property-related issues between spouses. It held that the jurisdiction of a Family Court is derived primarily from the Family Courts Act, which has an overriding effect over other laws. The Court emphasised that Explanation (c) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act expressly brings disputes relating to property between spouses within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, and this jurisdiction does not cease merely because a divorce decree has been passed.
The Court further clarified that Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which enables courts to make provisions regarding property presented at or about the time of marriage, is discretionary in nature. The use of the word “may” in the provision indicates that it does not impose a rigid limitation on the timing or manner in which such claims must be decided. The High Court held that Section 27 cannot be interpreted in a manner that restricts or curtails the broader jurisdiction conferred on Family Courts under the Family Courts Act.
The High Court also noted that forcing parties to initiate separate civil proceedings for recovery of matrimonial property after divorce would defeat the objective of the Family Courts Act and lead to unnecessary multiplicity of litigation. It observed that matrimonial disputes, including those relating to property, should ideally be resolved by a single forum to ensure effective, expeditious, and comprehensive justice. The Court underscored that property claims arising out of the marital relationship do not lose their character merely because the marriage has been dissolved.
In view of these findings, the Himachal Pradesh High Court set aside the order of the Family Court which had dismissed the appellant’s application for lack of jurisdiction. The matter was remitted back to the Family Court with a direction to adjudicate the property claims on their merits in accordance with law. The judgment reaffirmed that Family Courts retain jurisdiction to decide disputes relating to stridhan, gifts, and other matrimonial property even after a divorce decree has been granted, ensuring continuity of legal remedies for parties in matrimonial disputes.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.