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 30TH JUNE 2009 / 9TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 18178 of 2009(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. THANKAPPAN,AGED 65 YEARS,12/1 THANKAMUTHU COLONY,NEAR RAGHAVENDRA KALYANA MANDAPAM,POLLACHI. 2. SULOCHANA,AGED 55 YEARS,W/O.THANKAPPAN, 12/1 THANKAMUTHU COLONY,NEAR RAGHAVENDRA KALYANAMANDAPAM,POLLACHI,(POLLACHI POLICE STATION JURISDICTION). BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DARSANA, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O.DR.M.A.MADHAVAN,(DIMPLE),MARAVATTICKAL, KOTTAYI,PALAKKAD. 2. SREEJA, AGED 3 YEARS,MINOR REP.BY DARSANA,D/O.DR.M.A.MADHAVAN (DIMPLE), MARAVATTICKAL,KOTTAYI,PALAKKAD. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARIRANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.(C).No.18178 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June 2009 J U D G M E N T BASANT,J The petitioners have come to this court claiming to be aggrieved by a notice issued to them in an application for attachment prior to judgment in a proceedings pending before the Family Court, Palakkad. 2. Ordinarily and normally, one would have expected the petitioners to appear before the Family Court and raise all objections for consideration by the Family Court. It cannot be ruled out that there may be exceptional circumstances where a party can be permitted to come before this court complaining about invocation of the jurisdiction by the Family Court where non-exists. To ascertain whether the case on hand would fall within the rare category of such cases, we requested the learned counsel for the petitioner to explain the objections against the notice issued by the Family Court. 3. First of all, it is contended that the Family Court does not have territorial jurisdiction. Secondly, it is contended that W.P.C No.18178 of 2009 2 the respondent herein, that is the one who had initiated proceedings before the Family Court, is an Australian citizen though of Indian origin. Thirdly it is contended that the nature of the dispute is such that the same cannot fall within the explanations in Section 7 of the Family Court Act. 4. We have considered the nature of objections which the petitioners want to raise. We are certainly satisfied that the petitioners must raise their objections before the Family Court and solicit orders from the Family Court on such questions. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision of the Family Court on such questions raised, needless to say, the avenues of challenge shall be available to the petitioners. 5. We find no merit in the contention that the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can or ought to be invoked. The mere assertion that the initiation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process of the court is not, according to us, sufficient at this juncture to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. W.P.C No.18178 of 2009 3 6. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. But we may hasten to observe that the the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all relevant contentions before the Family Court. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARIRANI, JUDGE) jsr W.P.C No.18178 of 2009 4 W.P.C No.18178 of 2009 5 R.BASANT & M.C.HARIRANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 18/06/2009