Family Court Has Jurisdiction To Entertain Plea Seeking Reliefs U/S 18-22 Domestic Violence Act: Kerala High Court

Family Court Has Jurisdiction To Entertain Plea Seeking Reliefs U/S 18-22 Domestic Violence Act: Kerala High Court

Case: George Varghese v. Treesa Sebastian & Ors. and connected matter

Coram: Justice Amit Rawal and Justice C.S. Sudha

Case No.: OP (FC) NO. 539 OF 2022

Court Observation: “What is discerned from the provisions of Section 12 is that an aggrieved person is free to elect any of the reliefs. The legislature in the wisdom has framed the Act by taking into consideration the doctrine of election. The parties are free to elect either a remedy under Section 12 or reserve the right to claim other reliefs as provided under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 21 in the manner and mode as has been done. The plain and simple reading of the provisions of Section 26 left the question clear and unambiguous that a party seeking a claim under any provisions of the civil or criminal court much less a family court can always claim relief in addition as provided under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Act,”

“Any relief available under sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 may also be sought in any legal proceeding, before a civil court, family court or a criminal court, affecting the aggrieved person and the respondent whether such proceeding was initiated before or after the commencement of the Act”

“The apprehension expressed by the petitioner by submitting an application for return of the original petition, in our view is far-fetched and a figment of imagination; rather ought to have pressed the issue of maintainability and lead evidence by leaving the question open for the Trial/Family Court to decide at an appropriate stage. Similarly, the argument that the relief under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 cannot be granted by the trial court is also untenable much less opaque, capricious and hereby rejected. The whole purpose of carving out the Family Court Act is to club various provisions by confining the jurisdiction of one court to prevent multifariousness. This is precisely what has been sought in this case”

Previous Posts

Competent Court Can Examine Valuation Of IPR Suit Below ₹3 Lakhs, Transfer To Commercial Courts Not Necessary: Delhi High Court

Seniority Among RIMS Employees To Be Based On Order Of Merit In Selection: Jharkhand High Court

Appointment Of Local Commissioner Cannot Be Sought By One Party To Marshal Better Evidence Against Another: Delhi High Court

Service Law | Supreme Court Upholds Ante Dating Of Seniority List; Says No Prejudice Caused As Separate Quotas Prescribed For Degree & Diploma Holders

Murder Trial | Exception 4 To Section 300 IPC Not Applicable If Accused Took “Undue Advantage” Of Situation: Supreme Court