Family Courts Act | Section 14 Overrides Section 92 Indian Evidence Act To Admit Oral Evidence For Proving Real Source Of Funds: Kerala High Court

"Once the Family Court arrives at such conclusion, it can rely on any such evidence dehors Section 92, in the light of Section 14 of the Act, which gives an overriding effect to the provisions relating to relevancy and admissibility under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872." Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling dated September 26, 2026, has clarified the evidentiary scope of Family Courts, holding that they possess the discretion to admit oral evidence to prove the true source of funds in property disputes, even where such evidence might otherwise be barred by Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act.

A division bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar held that Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 grants the court an overriding power to receive any information or matter that assists in the effectual resolution of a matrimonial dispute.

The dispute involved a matrimonial petition where the wife sought the return of gold ornaments, money, and a share in the value of residential property purchased in the joint names of the couple. The wife contended that her father had provided the entire consideration for the property, which was registered in the joint names of the couple for the sake of marital harmony. The trial court had granted her partial relief, leading to appeals by both parties regarding the findings on gold ornaments, maintenance, and the ownership of the immovable property.

The primary question before the court was whether the bar under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act prevents a party from proving that the true source of purchase consideration was different from what was recited in the sale deed. The court was also called upon to determine whether it could exercise its powers under Order VII Rule 7 of the CPC to mould the relief by declaring exclusive title, despite the petitioner originally seeking only the recovery of half the property's value.

The Court examined the interplay between the exclusionary rule of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act and the enabling provision of Section 14 of the Family Courts Act. While Section 92 generally prohibits oral evidence to contradict or vary the terms of a written contract, the Bench underscored the distinct legislative intent behind the Family Courts Act.

Section 14 Provides Procedural Flexibility

The Court observed that Section 14 explicitly empowers the Family Court to receive any evidence that may assist it in dealing "effectually with a dispute," regardless of its admissibility under the Evidence Act. By virtue of this provision, the Court held that the strict rigours of Section 92 can be relaxed if necessary to arrive at the truth of a matrimonial financial dispute, provided the evidence is tested for reliability.

"The Family Court can take into consideration any such statement, information or document if it finds that the same is necessary for effectively resolving the dispute."

Proving Source of Funds

On the merits of the property dispute, the Court found that the wife’s father had sufficiently proven the source of funds through bank statements, whereas the husband failed to produce any evidence to substantiate his claim of having contributed his own funds. The Court rejected the husband's reliance on the recital in the sale deed, noting that in domestic property disputes, recitals regarding consideration often do not capture the actual financial arrangement between spouses.

Requirement of Caution in Evidence

The Bench cautioned that the discretion granted by Section 14 is not an invitation to ignore the rules of evidence entirely. Referencing Pramod E.K. v. Louna V.C., the Court reiterated that Family Courts must still adhere to fundamental principles of logic, fairness, and natural justice, ensuring that admitted evidence has probative value.

"The reliability and probative value of such materials are also to be tested in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case."

Moulding of Relief under Order VII Rule 7

Addressing the wife’s request for exclusive title, the Court ruled that it was not bound by the initial prayer for monetary recovery. Observing that the pleadings contained sufficient factual assertions to support a claim of exclusive ownership, the Court invoked Order VII Rule 7 of the CPC to mould the relief. Remanding the matter would have been a "futile exercise," and the Court declared the wife’s exclusive ownership over the property, directing the husband to vacate.

The High Court dismissed the husband's appeal and partially allowed the wife’s appeal, modifying the decree to grant her exclusive ownership of the property. This judgment reinforces the proactive, truth-seeking role of Family Courts, confirming that technical evidentiary bars should not obstruct the resolution of marital property disputes where clear financial evidence to the contrary exists.

Date of Decision: 26 September 2026