A division bench of Justices Anil K Narendran and PG Ajithkumar was considering a case where a woman had approached the family court seeking compensation of ₹50 lakh as damages from her husband and father-in-law for publicly describing her as mentally ill, thereby tarnishing her reputation in society.
The bench after referring to the High Court’s own judgments in similar matters, held that the dispute must have a nexus with the marital relationship for it come within the jurisdiction of the family court.
In this case, the bench noted that the cause of action for the appellant to claim compensation is the injury allegedly caused to her reputation on account of libel and slander.
This is an action for tort, which by itself is a civil wrong that constitures a cause of action, the bench noted.
“What emerges from the principles laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions is that the dispute must have a nexus with the marital relationship….Whether or not she is married to the 1st respondent (husband), the alleged statements made by the respondents if defamatory, is a sufficient casue of action,” the bench said in its judgment.
The bench found that the marital relationship has no bearing on the dispute in the present case and, therefore, it is not something to be agitated before the family court.
“When the sole reason for claiming compensation is such statements, the marital relationship between the appellant and the 1st respondent does not have any relevance or role in resolving such a dispute. The relationship between the appellant and the respondents would not make any impact in the ultimate decision. In that view of the matter it cannot be said that the dispute involved in O.P.No.400 of 2019 has any nexus to the marital relationship or is a dispute in the circumstances arising out of the marital relationship,” the judgement stated.
Source: Barandbench
