Allowed

Maxwell.M Chennur v. Happy (Anna Happy)

Kerala HC29 Nov 2012OP (FC)/4036/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court exercised its Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction to confirm a Family Court order. The Court directed the petitioner to hand over the respondent the car, finding the Family Court order was not illegal or perverse. The respondent was also granted an undertaking on the vehicle's usage.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to hand over custody of the Innova car to the respondent within 10 days; the impugned Family Court order is confirmed.

Maxwell.M Chennur Vs Happy (Anna Happy) — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/8TH AGRAHAYANA 1934 OP (FC).No. 4036 of 2011 ( ) ---------------------------OP.1933/2009 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM

¶4

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶5

MAXWELL.M CHENNUR, S/O MICHAEL J. CHENNUR, CHENNUR HOUSE, VYDRAYPADI PALLIPPURAM, P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 515 POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MICHAEL ROCKEY, 60 YEARS S/O.PAUL ROCKEY,PANAKKAPRAMBIL HOUSE, PALLIPORT PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK. BY ADVS.SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.SEBIN THOMAS SRI.M.NOOHUKUNJU SAHIB SMT.J.KASTHURI SRI.SWATHY DAS

¶6

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:

¶7

HAPPY (ANNA HAPPY),D/O E.K. ANTONY, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM VILLAGE NAYARAMBALAM P.O., KOCHI TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN-682 509.

¶8

R1 BY ADV. HAPPY (PARTY-IN-PERSON)

¶9

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶10

APPENDIX

¶11

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶12

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPIES OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS.

¶13

EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPIES OF THE JOINT BANK ACCOUNTS BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS.

¶14

EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER A AS IA 5464/09 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶16

EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTION PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS AS IA 5247/2010 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶17

EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO IA 5257/2010.

¶18

EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/11/2011 IN IA NO.5464/2009 & IA 5257/2010 IN OP NO.1933/2009.

¶19

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶20

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &

¶21

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

¶22

O.P.(FC) No. 4036 OF 2011

¶23

Dated this the 29^th day of November, 2012

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J

¶26

Under challenge in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution filed by the petitioner who is the husband of the respondent, is Ext.P7 common order passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam in I.A.No.5464 of 2009 and I.A.No.5257 of 2010 in O.P.No.1933 of 2009. In the above original petition the petitioner is seeking an order of injunction against the respondent restraining her from alienating, encumbering and otherwise disposing of a car on the premise that though the ownership as per R.C.Book stands in the name of the respondent the car belongs to him as the entire funds for

¶27

O.P.(FC) No. 4036 OF 2011

¶28

-:2:-

¶29

purchasing the car was supplied by him only.

¶30

I.A.No.5257 of 2010 was filed by the respondent

¶31

alleging that after obtaining an interim order of injunction against her in I.A.5464 of 2009 the car was stealthily taken away from her residential premises by the petitioner and it is now kept idle in the backyard of the petitioner's residential premises. Under the impugned order the learned Family Court found that the probabilities are that the car was under the user of the respondent and her children who are living separately from the petitioner. The version of the respondent that she was dispossessed of the car by the petitioner on the strength of an interim order of injunction issued by the Court on 31.12.2009 in I.A.No.5464 OF 2009 was highly probable, particularly as the respondent had allegedly filed a complaint before the police regarding the loss of the vehicle and the police investigating into the above complaint found the vehicle lying idly, hidden in the compound of the paternal house of the petitioner in North Paravur. The Court noticed that allowing the vehicle to remain idle will result in deterioration of the value of the vehicle, hence taking into account the circumstance that respondent is the

¶32

O.P.(FC) No. 4036 OF 2011

¶33

-:3:-

¶34

owner of the vehicle as per the statutory records, has passed the impugned order.

¶35

Under the impugned order both the interlocutory applications are allowed. The respondent is restrained by an interim injunction from alienating, encumbering and transferring the ownership of the vehicle till the disposal of the main original petition. The I.A. filed by the respondent is also allowed and the petitioner is directed to handover interim possession of the vehicle to the respondent within 15 days from the date of the order.

¶36

We have heard the submissions of Sri.Nagaraj Narayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and those of the respondent who appeared before us and made submissions in person. We have carefully read through the impugned order. Even though Sri.Nagaraj Narayanan suggested at the out set that the present original petition and various other litigations pending between the parties in various courts can be settled in mediation through one of the accredited mediators of the High Court Mediation Centre, the respondent told us that as very serious allegations of adultery are raised against her by her

¶37

O.P.(FC) No. 4036 OF 2011 -:4:-

¶38

husband, she would like to have the divorce case decided by the Court judicially on merits after taking evidence. Moreover, we notice that the petitioner is not presently in India. We, therefore, proceed to decide this original petition on merits.

¶39

We will immediately remind ourselves of the well delineated contours of our jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. In this supervisory jurisdiction this Court is not expected to interfere with the order passed by a subordinate judicial authority unless the order passed by a subordinate judicial authority can be said to be perse illegal, as it offends clear provision of law, is passed without jurisdiction or is perverse in the sense that such an order will not be authored by any person having reasonable learning and training in law. When we gauge Ext.P7 by the yardsticks which are applicable to the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, it is very clear to our mind that Ext.P7 is not an order which is liable to be corrected under the visitorial jurisdiction. We therefore confirm the impugned order.

¶40

The petitioner is directed to handover custody of the vehicle in question - Innova Car having registration No.KL-42-A

¶41

O.P.(FC) No. 4036 OF 2011

¶42

-:5:-

¶43

8182 - in running and roadworthy condition to the respondent

¶44

either directly or through any of his agents. This shall be done within 10 days from today. There will be a corresponding direction to the respondent to preserve the vehicle once she obtains custody under proper repairs and maintenance so that the party who is ultimately successful in O.P.No.1933 of 2009 can enjoy the vehicle as a valuable asset.

¶45

Further, we record the undertaking given to us by the respondent that the vehicle will be used for travel for herself, her children, her parents and her immediate family members only and that no strangers will be allowed to use the vehicle.

¶46

The O.P.(FC) is disposed of as above.

¶47

Sd/- ( PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

¶48

Sd/- (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE)

¶49

ul/-

¶50

[True copy]

¶51

P.S. to Judge.

Maxwell.M Chennur v. Happy (Anna Happy)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maxwell.M Chennur v. Happy (Anna Happy)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Shameena Vs a.a.Rasheed

Sibi, D/O.Ramla Beevi Vs Shahul Hammed Shamsudeen

Subash.K. Vs Ramya.M.R.

Karthikeyan Vs Sudha and Another

Biju Mon.K.N. Vs Sini

K.N.Bijumon Vs Sulochana and Another