Dismissed

Vijayakumar v. Renjith Kumar

Kerala HC12 Jul 2016CRP/158/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a Civil Revision Petition challenging a Munsiff Court judgment that rejected an argument for lack of jurisdiction, the High Court of Kerala held that the trial court was justified in finding jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that since the suit was against the divorced wife's parents (not parties to the marriage) regarding property, it did not arise from marital relationships under the Family Co

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed, affirming the Munsiff Court's jurisdiction.

Vijayakumar Vs Renjith Kumar — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2016/21ST ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

CRP.No. 158 of 2016 --------------------

¶6

ORDER DATED 10-12-2015 IN OS 320/2014 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHANGANACHERRY

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER(S)/DEFENDANTS IN O.S.:-:

¶8

1. VIJAYAKUMAR S., AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.SUKUMARA PILLAI, RESIDING AT SIVAPARVATHY (KANDATHIL) HOUSE, MANJADIKARA BHAGOM, VAZHAPPALLY P.O., VAZHAPPALLY EAST KARA, VAZHAPPALLAY EAST VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

2. SOBHANAKUMAR, AGED 54 YEARS, W/O.VIJAYAKUMAR S., RESIDING AT SIVAPARVATHY(KANDATHIL) HOUSE, MANJADIKARA BHAGOM, VAZHAPPALLY P.O., VAZHAPPALLY EAST KARA, VAZHAPPALLAY EAST VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFF:

¶12

------------------------

¶13

RENJITH KUMAR, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.MOHANA DAS, RESIDING AT MANAYATHUSSERIL HOUSE, PAIPPAD MURI, PAIPPAD VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK(SIVAPARVATHY, MANJADIKARA, VAZHAPPALLY EAST MURI, VAZHAPPALLY EAST VILLAGE, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MOHANA DAS, S/O.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT MANAYATHUSSERIL HOUSE, PAIPPAD MURI, PAIPPAD VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK-686 101.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.V.N.SASIDHARAN

¶15

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

msv/

¶17

K. HARILAL, J.

¶18

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = C.R.P. No. 158 of 2016

¶19

- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of July, 2016

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.320 of

¶22

2014, on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Changanacherry, filed by the respondent herein. The suit is one for mandatory injunction, directing the

¶23

petitioners to vacate the plaint schedule residential building. The petitioners are the parents of the divorced wife. The marriage between the respondent and the daughter of the petitioners' was dissolved by a decree and after the dissolution of the marriage, the respondent preferred the above Original Suit, seeking eviction. The petitioners filed a written statement, contending that the petitioners' daughter, the divorced wife of the respondent filed O.P. No.1201 of 2013, before the Family Court, Kottayam, seeking declaration of right of possession over the subject matter of the suit

¶24

C.R.P. No. 158 of 2016

¶25

-: 2 :-

¶26

and for realising an amount of `29,95,750/- from the respondent and for causing the respondent to execute a sale deed with respect to the plaint schedule properties, in favour of her and the said case is also pending for consideration.

¶27

According to the petitioners, since the matrimonial disputes are involved in the Original Suit, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. On the above premises, they pressed for hearing on the preliminary issue, as regards the maintainability of the suit before the Munsiff's Court. After considering the rival pleas with

¶28

respect to the jurisdiction of the court, the trial court rejected the contention raised by the petitioners and found that the Munsiff Court has jurisdiction to try the suit as the dispute involved

¶29

in the suit is not one arises out of the

¶30

circumstances arising out of the marital

¶31

C.R.P. No. 158 of 2016

¶32

-: 3 :-

¶33

relationship and the parties are not parties in a suit between the parties to a marriage. The legality, propriety and correctness of the aforesaid finding are challenged in this Original Petition (Civil).

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶35

petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioners advanced arguments in support of the grounds raised in the memorandum of the Original Suit and contended that the dispute involved in the present suit is one, which arises out of the circumstances in a marital relationship. It is also contended that so long as O.P. No.1201 of 2013, is pending before the Family Court, Ettumanoor, if this Original Suit is tried separately, the rights of the petitioners' daughter also will be affected. In support of the

¶37

C.R.P. No. 158 of 2016

¶38

-: 4 :-

¶39

arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶40

cited Leby Issac v. Leena M. Ninan [2005(3) KLT 665].

¶41

On the other hand, the learned counsel

¶42

appearing for the respondent advanced arguments in support of the impugned finding and contended that the parties to the marriage, as provided under Clause (c) to Section 7 of the Family Courts Act,1984( hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), are absent in the instant suit. Similarly, since the marriage stands dissolved, the marital relationship between the respondent and the petitioners' daughter stands ceased. Therefore, there is no circumstances arising out of the marital relationship. It is also contended that in the absence of any of the circumstances coming under Clauses (1) to (g) of Section 7 of the Act, this suit cannot be tried before the Family Court.

¶43

In view of the submissions made at the Bar,

¶44

C.R.P. No. 158 of 2016

¶45

the question to be considered is, whether there is

¶46

any circumstances arising out of marital relationship coming under Clause (d) of the

¶47

Explanation to Section 7 of the Act. Admittedly, the marital relationship between the respondent and the petitioners' daughter stands dissolved by a decree. It follows that the marital relationship ceased to exist. Coming to the suit, the defendants are father and mother of the divorced wife. It is pertinent to note that the divorced wife is not a party in the Original Suit and all the reliefs are sought for against the petitioners herein only. Therefore, the facts involved in the case and the relationship between the petitioners and the respondent would not

¶48

come within the ambit of Clause (c) of the Explanation to Section 7 of the Act. Similarly, in the absence of marital relationship between the respondent and the petitioners' daughter, it cannot

¶49

C.R.P. No. 158 of 2016

¶50

-: 6 :-

¶51

be held that there is a circumstance arising out of the marital relationship.

¶52

Coming to the pendency of O.P. No.1201 of

¶53

2013 before the Family Court, Ettumanoor, filed by the petitioners' daughter, seeking declaration of title and for realising an amount of `29,95,750/-, this Court is of the view that the decree that may be passed in the Original Suit, before the Munsiff Court, will not affect the matter in issue involved in the Original Petition (Civil) pending before the Family Court. The instant suit is one for evicting the petitioners, who are not parties to the marriage. In short, the decree that may be passed in this suit will not be prejudicial to the determination of the matter in issue involved in O.P. No.1201 of 2013 of Family Court, Ettumanoor.

¶54

The Munsiff's Court is justified in finding that the Original Suit is maintainable before the Munsiff's

¶55

C.R.P. No. 158 of 2016

¶56

-: 7 :-

¶57

Court.

¶58

Needless to say, the Family Court will dispose O.P. No.1201 of 2013 untrammelled by the observations made by the Munsiff's Court in the instant suit. Thus, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the findings, whereby the trial court rejected the challenge against the maintainability of the suit.

¶59

This Civil Revision Petition is dismissed

accordingly.

Sd/-

K. HARILAL,

JUDGE

DST

//True copy//

Vijayakumar v. Renjith Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayakumar v. Renjith Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Authorised Officer Vs M.Gopalan

Rajan Vs Laly

M.K.Anandavally Vs K.T.Soman

M.T. Abdul Salam Vs the State Bank of India

Raphel Vs Treesa

Sukumaran Vs Baburaj