In this matrimonial appeal, the High Court of Kerala considered a challenge to a Family Court order granting temporary injunction restraining appellants from alienating a scheduled property. The Court held that the order was intended to preserve the property during pendency of the main suit and found no illegality justifying interference.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/23RD SRAVANA, 1935
Mat.Appeal.No. 537 of 2013 ()
-----------------------------(I.A.NO.405/2012 IN O.P.NO.468/2012 OF FAMILY COURT, KANNUR)
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN IA 405/2012 IN OP. 468/2012:
1. BHASKARAN SATHEISH BABU, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.M.P.BHASKARAN, NEW NO.11, 3RD CROSS STREET, EAST SHENOY NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 030, REPRESENTED BY HIS BROTHER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR.B. ANANDAKRISHNAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.M.P.BHASKARAN, OLD NO.6 NEW NO.11, 3RD CROSS STREET, SHENOY NAGAR EAST, CHENNAI-600 030.
2. SATHI BHASKARAN, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O.M.P.BHASKARAN, NEW NO.11, 3RD CROSS STREET, EAST SHENOY NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 030, REPRESENTED BY HER SON AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR.B. ANANDAKRISHNAN , AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.M.P.BHASKARAN, OLD NO.6 NEW NO.11, 3RD CROSS STREET, SHENOY NAGAR EAST, CHENNAI-600 030.
3. B. ANANDAKRISHNAN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.M.P.BHASKARAN,OLD NO.6 NEW NO.11, 3RD CROSS STREET, SHENOY NAGAR EAST, CHENNAI-600 030.
BY ADV. SMT.V.K.HEMA
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN I.A.NO.405/2012 IN O.P.NO.468/2012 :
SHEEBA.P., AGED 34 YEARS, D/O.RAVEENDRAN, HOUSE NO.2/27 A, PULIYANKOT HOUSE, KOTTALI P.O., PUZHATHI AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
MA.NO.537/2013
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
| ANNEX A1 | CERTIFIED COPY OF THE INJUNCTION APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT AS I.A.NO.405 OF 2012 IN O.P.NO.468/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, KANNUR. |
|---|---|
| ANNEX A2 | CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE APPELLANTS TO THE INJUNCTION APPLICATION I.A.NO.405 OF 2012 IN O.P.NO.468/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, KANNUR. |
| ANNEX A3 | CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/06/2012 IN I.A.NO.405/2012 IN O.P.NO.468/2012 |
| ANNEX A4 | COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY BHASKARAN SATHEISH BABU IN FAVOUT OF BHASKARAN ANANDAKRISHNAN |
| ANNEX A5 | COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY SATHI BHASKARAN IN FAVOUR OF BHASKARAN AANANDA KRISHNAN |
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO.JUDGE
sts
ANTONY DOMINIC & P.D. RAJAN, JJ.
Mat. Appeal No.537 of 2013
Dated this the 14th day of August, 2013
JUDGMENT
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
The appeal arises from the order passed by the Family Court, Kannur in I.A. No.405/2012 in O.P.No.468/2012. O.P.No.468/2012 was filed by the respondent, who is the wife of the 1st appellant. The relief sought for in the O.P. is for compensation and permanent alimony of Rs.50,000/-. In that O.P., the aforesaid I.A. was filed for temporary injunction restraining the appellants from alienating, disposing or selling the petition schedule property. To the I.A., a counter affidavit was filed and the Family Court passed Annexure-A3 order restraining the appellants from alienating the property, pending disposal of the O.P. It is challenging this order, this appeal is filed.
Mat. Appeal No.537/13 2
to alienate the property further. It was therefore that the Family Court has passed the order impugned, in order mainly to ensure that the property in question is preserved during the pendency of the O.P. This intention of the Family Court, although is not stated in so many words in the order impugned, is evident from the tenor of the order passed by the Family Court. In such a case, we are not in a position to find any illegality in the said order, justifying interference in the appeal.
The Mat. Appeal will stand dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.
acd
Mat. Appeal No.537/13 3
Mat. Appeal No.537/13 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court order granting temporary injunction against alienation of property is a reasoned order justifying interference.
Whether the temporary injunction order was passed notwithstanding the pending nature of the main dispute.
BHASKARAN SATHEISH BABU
SATHI BHASKARAN
BHASKARAN ANANDAKRISHNAN
SHEEBA.P.
ANTONY DOMINIC
P.D. RAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
