The Court dismissed a matrimonial appeal challenging a Family Court order on territorial jurisdiction, holding that the order was interlocutory as it did not finally decide the parties' rights, rendering the appeal not maintainable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.
The Mat.App. No.8 of 2016 is dismissed as not maintainable.
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 K.HARILAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941
Mat.Appeal.No.8 OF 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.113/2005 IN OP(GW) 1688/2012
DATED 24-08-2015 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:
FLAT NO.6, SATHYA NAGAR, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU.
BY ADV. SRI.P.VINODKUMAR
RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
ANVY PARANGOTTU MATHEW PARANGOTTU HOUSE, KOTTAYAM P.O, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mat.Appeal.No.8 OF 2016
2
JUDGMENT
Harilal,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The question to be considered in this appeal as a preliminary issue is whether the appeal is maintainable or not. The statutory mandate under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act is that an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order of a Family Court to the High Court both on facts and on law. Then the question is what is an interlocutory order. In Manga Lakshmi v. K.Basanth Kumar [2016(3) KHC 111], this Court held that “the main criteria to be borne-in-mind is as to
3
Mat.Appeal.No.8 OF 2016
whether the order is deciding the cause itself or whether it only settles some intervening matters relating to the cause. If the order does not terminate the proceedings or finally decides the right of the parties, it is only an interlocutory order. If it decides only a particular aspect or a particular issue, or a particular matter in a proceeding of the suit or trial, but which does not conclude trial, it cannot be termed as interlocutory order”.
2. When applying the aforesaid proposition to this case, we find that this appeal is filed challenging the order, whereby, the Family Court rejected the application challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Family
Mat.Appeal.No.8 OF 2016
4
Court, Ettumanoor, to entertain the original petition and that the Family Court rejected that contention and found that the Family Court, Ettumanoor has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the original petition. It follows that the impugned order does not terminate the proceedings, or finally decides the right of the parties and it is only an interlocutory order. It decides only a particular aspect or a particular issue in a proceeding of the suit. Therefore, we find that this Mat.Appeal is not maintainable and the same would stand dismissed as not maintainable. We make
it clear that the appellants are at liberty to seek appropriate remedies, in accordance with law, before this Court
Mat.Appeal.No.8 OF 2016
5
and this judgment will not stand in the
way of such proceedings.
Sd/K.HARILAL, JUDGE
Sd/-
ma/26/11/19 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
/True copy/ P.S to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal challenging the Family Court's order on territorial jurisdiction is maintainable under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act.
Whether an order settling territorial jurisdiction constitutes an interlocutory order or finally decides the rights of the parties.
Whether the Mat.App. filed against the rejection of a jurisdiction challenge is maintainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Manga Lakshmi v. K. Basanth KumarFollowed¶26
_Manga Lakshmi v. K.Basanth Kumar [2016(3) KHC 111]_
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Goldie George
K.K. George
Glorie George
Anvy Parangottu Mathew
K. Harilal
C.S. Dias
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
