Snehal Upadhyay-
Kerala High Court decided that its constitutional jurisdiction cannot be used for deciding cases for which remedies are available under civil law.
The Court stated that the petitioners are not entitled to any reliefs refusing to exercise the powers of the judicial review and superintendence concerning a plea which claimed declaration of the validity of a marriage per Section 7(e) of the Family Courts Act (A suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the legitimacy of any person).
The High Court noted that it’s the jurisdiction of a Family Court.
The Court stated that “In a proceeding, instituted under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court has intrinsic limitations in resolving the issues relevant in the facts and circumstance of this case.”
Also Read: Presumption of Death in the Court of Law
The Court highlighted the powers of the Civil Court. It contrasted that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are moulded to determine factual questions by the Civil Courts. The Court impliedly contended that Civil Courts carry a declaration as to the legal character of the right or liability or the estate in question.
In the second issue, the Court dealt with whether the petitioners had established the facts and circumstances to make the presumption of death while referring to Section 107 and Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act that it’s an issue of fact.
The Court further said, “The presumption of death is a rule of evidence which determines the sufficiency of certain facts to discharge the burden of proof from the party on whom it is placed by the pleadings. The relevant provisions are dealt with in Sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Evidence Act.”
The Court concluded that the presumption, a rebuttable presumption of law that if the person died in the period of seven years or more, must be applied to prevent fraud and injustice.
