Can Family Court Decide Marital Status After Alleged Husband's Death? Kerala High Court Answers

The Kerala High Court has held that Family Courts do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes concerning the validity of a marriage or matrimonial status when one of the alleged spouses had died before the proceedings were instituted. [Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 328]

It further held that such disputes are ordinary civil disputes to be decided by civil courts.

A Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. delivered the judgment while dismissing an appeal against an order of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which had returned the original petition for presentation before the competent civil court.

“A dispute that arises at a point in time when one of the parties to the marriage, whether actual or alleged, is no more, cannot be presented before a Forum that is tasked with adjudicating disputes that arise in a subsisting relationship between live persons,” the Court observed.

The appellant claimed to be the legally wedded wife of a deceased man, Sasikumar and approached the Family Court seeking a declaration that she was his lawful wife. She also sought the partition of properties allegedly belonging to the deceased, and mesne profits. She also contended that the respondents in the original petition, who were another woman and her children, had no lawful marital relationship with the deceased.

The respondents challenged the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, because the alleged husband had died before the proceedings were initiated. The Family Court accepted this contention and directed the petition to be presented before a civil court. Hence the appeal was filed before the High Court.

The appellant relied on the decision in Balram Yadav v Fulmaniya Yadav [2016 KHC 6310], to argue that even in cases where the Original Petition instituted before the Family Court is at a point in time when a person alleged to be the husband is no more, the Family Court will have jurisdiction to decide the issue of validity of the marriage or matrimonial status of the petitioner before it.

The respondents, however, relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in R. Kasthuri and Ors. v. M. Kasthuri and Others [2018 KHC 2535], to contend that Family Courts are intended to resolve “family disputes” involving living parties and ongoing family relationships.

It was further submitted that the emphasis under the Family Courts Act is for conciliation and achieving socially desirable results for settlement for family disputes and to avoid an adherence to rigid rules of procedure and evidence while dealing with family disputes.

The Court also noted that the 59 the report of the Law Commission has also stressed that while dealing with family disputes, the approach adopted is different from that of civil proceedings as it generally concentrates on reasonable efforts at settlement before commencement of trial.

The Court agreed with the argument of the respondent that the proceeding for a declaration as to validity of a marriage or as to matrimonial status of a person can only be done in lis in which both the parties to the marriage are alive and are made parties to the proceedings.

“It is apparent from a reading of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kasthuri R. (supra) that where a dispute arises after the death of the person to whom both the parties to the dispute claim to be married, that dispute cannot be viewed as a 'family dispute' which requires to be adjudicated by the Family Court. Such a dispute would retain the character of a civil dispute simpliciter that has to be adjudicated by a civil court of competent jurisdiction.” Court observed.

The Court observed that the declaration sought by the appellant was essentially aimed at establishing entitlement to the deceased's property and that the matrimonial declaration was ancillary to that property claim.

The Court noted that the words 'declaration of validity of marriage' is used together with “matrimonial status” in Section 7(1) of Family Court Act, 1984. The Bench thus observed that the legislature intended Family Courts to adjudicate disputes connected with a subsisting marital relationship.

Referring to the objectives of the Family Courts Act, the court emphasized that Family Courts were established to encourage conciliation, preserve family relationships, and adopt procedures distinct from ordinary civil litigation. These objectives, the Court said, presuppose the existence of living parties whose relationship may be preserved or reconciled.

The Court thus dismissed the appeal. While dismissing the appeal, the court protected the appellant from limitation difficulties by directing that the time spent prosecuting the matter before the Family Court and the High Court be excluded when computing limitations for any civil suit subsequently filed.

Case Title: RK v PK and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 328

Case No: Mat. Appeal 194/ 2026

Counsel for Appellant: D. Kishore, Meera Gopinath, R. Muraleekrishnan, Anant Kishore

Counsel for Respondents: Arun V.G, R. Harikrishnan, Neeraj Narayan