Dismissed

P.Ratnavally v. Bhanumathy

Kerala HC20 Aug 2019FAO (RO)/77/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal against the appellate court's order upholding that the Family Court, not the civil court, has exclusive jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Family Court Act for disputes between a husband and wife regarding property. The Third Appeal was dismissed with a direction to pass appropriate orders within one month.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; matter remanded to Family Court for consideration within one month.

P.Ratnavally Vs Bhanumathy — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 29TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

FAO (RO).No.77 OF 2017

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN OS 491/2012 DATED 20-12-2014 OF I ADDITIONAL SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN AS 115/2015 DATED 27-02-2017 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT - IV, KOZHIKODE

¶8

APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2/PLAINTIFFS:

¶9

1 P.RATNAVALLY,

¶10

AGED 44 YEARS,D/O. VASUDEVAN NAIR, RESIDING AT POCKATT HOUSE, PANANGATTOOR P.O. TANUR, MALAPPURAM.

¶11

2 SREELAKSHMI, AGED 17 YEARS,(MINOR), D/O. RATNAVALLY, RESIDING AT POCKATT HOUSE,PANANGATTOOR P.O, TANUR, MALAPPURAM RERPESENTED BY GUARDIAN AND MOTHER 1ST APPELLANT.

¶12

BY ADVS.

¶13

SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH

¶14

RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS AND 2ND RESPONDENT/DEFENDANTS:

¶15

1 BHANUMATHY, AGED 65 YEARS,W/O. GANGADHARAN, RESIDING AT PULLOOR HOUSE,P.O KOLATHARA, KOZHIKODE - 673 655.

¶16

2 KOZHIPULLI REMANI,

¶17

AGED 56 YEARS, D/O. CHINNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT KOZHIPULLI HOUSE,P.O. CHERUVANNUR, KOZHIKODE-673 524.

¶18

3 KOZHIPULLI RAJAN,

¶19

AGED 54 YEARS,S/O. CHINNAN NAIR, RESIDING AT KOZHIPULLI HOUSE,P.O CHEERUVANNUR, KOZHIKODE-673 524.

¶20

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER - REMAND ORDER HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

SATHISH NINAN, J.

¶22

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = FAO (RO) No.77 of 2017

¶23

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20^th day of August, 2019

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

An order of remand is under challenge by the plaintiffs.

¶26

The suit is filed challenging document No.170/2011 of Feroke SRO. The first plaintiff is the wife of the first defendant. The plaint schedule property was acquired in the joint names of the first plaintiff and the first defendant. Their relationship became strained. The first plaintiff initiated proceedings before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Parappanangadi, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, which was numbered as MC 16/09. Therein an order of injunction was passed restraining the first defendant herein from alienating the property. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant in violation of the said prohibitory order alienated the property to his sisters viz. defendants 2 and 3. It is also

¶27

FAO (RO) No.77 of 2017

¶28

:- 2 :-

¶29

contended that the plaintiffs have a right of maintenance against the interest of the first defendant over the property. The alienation is made to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs. On the said allegations, the suit is filed for a declaration that the document No.170/11 is void.

¶30

The trial court decreed the suit declaring the document to be void. Defendants 2 and 3 challenged the decree in appeal. The appellate court referring to Section 7 of the Family Court Act held that since the dispute is between the husband and the wife, it falls within the sweep of Section 7 of the Family Court Act and hence, the civil Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings. However, it was noticed that, the question of jurisdiction was not urged or considered by the trial court. Accordingly the appellate court set aside the decree and judgment of the trial court and remanded the matter to the trial court for consideration on the issue of jurisdiction. I do not find any error of law with the judgment impugned.

¶31

FAO (RO) No.77 of 2017 :- 3 :-

¶32

The appeal fails and is dismissed. Considering the fact that the original suit is of the year 2012 and apparently the Family Court alone has jurisdiction to deal with the issue, appropriate orders shall be passed by the Family Court as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶33

Sd/SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

kns/-

//True Copy//

P.S. to Judge

FAO (RO) No.77 of 2017

¶38

:- 4 :-

¶39

The word “ Family Court ” occurring in line No.5 at Page No.3 of the Judgment dated 20.08.2019 in FAO (RO) No.77 of 2017 is corrected and substituted as “ 1^st Additional Sub Court, Kozhikode ” as per order dated 20.09.2019 in FAO (RO) No.77 of 2017.

¶40

Sd/Deputy Registrar

P.Ratnavally v. Bhanumathy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Ratnavally v. Bhanumathy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laila Vs Sirajudeen

Joseph Vs Sasi

M.v.Selvaraj Vs N.a.Vijayan Achari

Abdurahiman Vs K.Muhammed Abdurahiman

Sandeep Vs Suresh

Sujatha Vs the Tahsildar