IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34274 of 2009(R) -------------------------- OP.845/2009 of FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- KHAMIS JUMA, S/O. SAYED MUHAMMED JAFFAR, AGED 27,HAVING PERMANENT RESIDENCE AT TC 20/2118 (48/1534),ALUVILAKATHU VEEDU,KARAMANA PO., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AND NOW AT PB NO.30735,DUBAI,UAE,REP.BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND FATHER SAYED MUHAMMED JAFFAR,R/AT TC 20/2118 (48/1534),ALUVILAKATHU VEEDU,KARAMANA P.O.,TVPM. BY ADV. SRI.G.P.SHINOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. JISHA, D/O. BIJILI, PERUNGUZHI VEEDU, KATTUPUTHUSSERI DESOM, PALLICKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIYANA, D/O. JISHA, PERUNGUZHI VEEDU, KATTUPUTHUSSERI DESOM, PALLICKAL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER. BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.34274/09 Appendix Petitioner's Exhibits:- P1: A true copy of O.P. No.845/2009 before the Family Court, Nedumangadu. P2: A true copy of I.A. No.2012/2009 in O.P. No.845/2009 on the files of the Family Court, Nedumangad. P3: A true copy of the objection filed by the petitioner through his power of Attorney holder to I.A. No.2012/2009 in O.P.No.845/2009. P4: A true copy of the order dated 2-11-2009 of the Family Court, Nedumangadu in I.A. No.2012/2009 in O.P.No.845/2009. R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No. 34274 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 15th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT This writ petition is directed against an interim order regarding the custody of a car. The claimant-wife asserted that the car belongs to her. The registration certificate stands in her name, but the car happens to be in the possession of the husband. The original petition was filed, inter alia, for returning the car. 2. The court below by the impugned interim order Ext.P4 directed that the car be produced before the court and returned to the claimant-wife. It is that order that is challenged before us. 3. There is no dispute that the car now stands registered in the name of the wife. In the absence of better evidence, she is undoubtedly the person entitled to possession of the car pending the O.P. 4. Registration by itself will not confer title, contends the learned counsel for the petitioner. That proposition of law is not disputed, but in the absence of better evidence, we agree with the court blow that claimant-wife was the best person who can be permitted to keep possession of the vehicle, pending disposal of the original petition. We do not find any merit in this W.P.(C) No. 34274/09 2 writ petition. The impugned order does not warrant interference by invoking the extra-ordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The challenge, therefore, fails. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner-husband submits that appropriate directions may be issued for expeditious disposal of the original petition and appropriate safeguards may be provided for use of the car, during the pendency of the original petition. We find merit in that submission. 6. We, therefore, direct the court below to dispose of O.P. No.845 of 2009 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date on which a copy of this judgment is placed before the court below. There shall also be a further direction that the claimant-wife shall not cause any damage or deterioration to the car and shall not alienate or transfer possession of the car, pending disposal of the original petition. 7. This writ petition, in these circumstances, is dismissed subject to the above directions and safeguards. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. mn.