IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2009 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 598 of 2007() ---------------------------- OP.1311/2005 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1,2,3 & 5 IN THE OP: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. DEVARAJAN M.J., REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, REETHAMMA RACOB, 'MAKAM', RAILWAY STATION ROAD, NEYYATTINKARA. (AS PER THE ORDER OF THE FAMILY COURT DATED 11.9.2006 IN I.A. 1790 OF 2006, THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER WAS PERMITTED TO CONDUCT THE CASE OF THE FAMILY COURT). 2. REETHAMMA JACOB, W/O.LATE JACOB JOSEPH, 'MAKAM', RAILWAY STATION ROAD, NEYYATTINKARA P.O. PIN 695 121.. 3. PUSHPAMMA M.R., 'MAKAM', RAILWAY STATION ROAD, NEYYATTINKARA P.O. PIN 695 121.. 4. GLADIS, T.A. @ SHINY, THOTTATHILSSERY HOUSE, DEVAPALAN NAGAR, PERURKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PERURKADA P.O. BY ADVS. SRI.K.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.S.GOPINATHAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER IN THE OP: ------------------------------------ SMITHA STANLEY, D/O. P.J. STANLEY, PARASSERIL HOUSE, MURIKKUMPADOM, AZHEEKKAL P.O., PIN-682 510., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- MAT. APPEAL NO.598 OF 2007 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The appellants before us are the respondents in an Original Petition pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam. That Original Petition was filed by the wife of the first appellant for return of gold ornaments allegedly entrusted with the appellants at the time of marriage or their equivalent value. Compensation is also claimed. After the Original Petition was filed before the Family Court, Ernakulam, an application for transfer was filed by the appellants before this Court contending that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. That petition was dismissed with the observation that the question of territorial jurisdiction can be raised before the Family Court. Accordingly, such question was raised before the Family Court and by the impugned order, the Family Court took the view that on the allegations in the plaint, the Family Court, Ernakulam has territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter. 2. That finding is based on the averments in the Original Petition that the marriage had taken place within the jurisdiction of the Family Mat. Appeal No. 598/2007 2 Court, Ernakulam, that the spouses lived together initially within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Ernakulam and the entrustment of gold ornaments also had taken place within the jurisdiction of the Family Court at Ernakulam. The marital tie was dissolved by an order of the Family Court, Ernakulam later. 3. In the facts narrated and referred to above, we are satisfied that the finding of the Family Court that it has jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter is absolutely justified and the same does not warrant any interference at all. 4. This appeal is, in the circumstances, dismissed. (R. BASANT) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ Mat. Appeal No. 598/2007 3 R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. MAT. APPEAL NO.598/07 JUDGMENT 26th March, 2009 Mat. Appeal No. 598/2007 4