IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 10TH OCTOBER 2011 / 18TH ASWINA 1933 Mat.Appeal.No. 368 of 2011() ---------------------------------- O.P. NO.560/2006 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD ........ PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS ------------------------------------ 1. V.P.CHITHRAKALA, D/O.VIJAYAMMA, AGED 49, SHAJ BHAVAN, ALAMPARA, ANAD, PALODE VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695562. 2. C.R.SRUTHI, D/O.V.P.CHITHRAKALA, AGED 24, SHAJ BHAVAN, ALAMPARA, ANAD, PALODE VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695562. 3. C.R.SMRITHI, D/O.V.P.CHITHRAKALA, AGED 21, SHAJ BHAVAN, ALAMPARA, ANAD, PALODE VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695562. BY ADV. SRI.B.RAGUNATHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 2-6 ------------------------------------------- 1. CHEMPAZHANTHY SREENARAYANA INTERNATIONAL STUDY AND PILGRIM CENTRE, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR, CHEMPAZHANTHY SREENARAYANA INTERNATIONAL STUDY AND PILGRIM CENTRE, CHEMPAZHANTHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695587. 2. RAJENDRAN, S/O.SIVARAJAN, AGED 65, CHANDRA NIVAS, CHARIYAD, SREEKARIYAM, PANGAPPARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK-695581. 3. CHANDRIKA, D/O.SIVARAJAN, AGED 59, CHANDRA NIVAS, CHARIYAD, SREEKARIYAM, PANGAPPARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK-695581. Svs ..........2/-... ....2.... MA. NO.368/2011 4. KARTHIKEYAN, S/O.SIVARAJAN, AGED 59, CHANDRA NIVAS, CHARIYAD, SREEKARIYAM, PANGAPPARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK-695581. 5. GOPAKUMAR, S/O.SIVARAJAN, AGED 53, CHANDRA NIVAS, CHARIYAD, SREEKARIYAM, PANGAPPARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK-695581. BY ADV. GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mat.Appeal No.368 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of October 2011 J U D G M E N T R.BASANT,J The appellants claim to be aggrieved by the order passed by the Family Court in O.P.No.560/2006 of Family Court, Nedumangad. They are the wife and two children of the original first respondent before the Family Court. The first respondent before the Family Court, i.e. the husband of the first appellant and father of appellants 2 and 3 had executed a sale deed in favour of the 2nd respondent before the Family Court, i.e. the first respondent herein. The appellants are challenging the said sale deed. They prayed that the said sale deed may be set aside. 2. Objection was raised that the Family Court does not have jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Inter alia it was contended that the Family Court does not have territorial jurisdiction also to entertain the suit. The Family Court, by the impugned order, came to the conclusion that the suit does not fall within the ambit of clauses (a) to (g) of the explanation to Mat.Appeal No.368 of 2011 2 Section 7 of the Family Court Act and consequently the Family Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. It was further observed that the Family Court does not have territorial jurisdiction also inasmuch as the two properties were admittedly not situated within the territorial jurisdiction of that court. 3. After having entered that finding, the Family Court proceeded to consider the claim on merits and made certain observations against the appellants under point No.2 in paragraphs 9 to 12. The suit was eventually dismissed on the ground that the Family Court has no territorial jurisdiction. The suit was dismissed with costs. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants only submits that having entered a finding that the Family Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter as also territorial jurisdiction, the Family Court should not have encumbered records with any unnecessary finding on merits. It is submitted that the appellants are not challenging the finding that the Family Court has no jurisdictional competence to deal with the matter. That finding may be upheld. The other findings on merits may be vacated and the plaint/petition may be ordered to Mat.Appeal No.368 of 2011 3 be returned to the appellants on the ground that the court has no territorial jurisdiction, submits the learned counsel for the appellants. 5. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent accepts that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and submits that the petition before the Family Court rightly deserves only to be dismissed/returned. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent points out further that appellants 2 and 3, who were minors at the relevant time, alone have rights over the property. They have not come on records even after they attained majority and, in these circumstances, at any rate, the petition was not liable to be entertained, contends counsel 6. We do not think it necessary to go into the other questions raised. The finding that the Family Court has no jurisdictional competence is accepted by the appellants as well as the contesting 1st respondent. In these circumstances, we agree with the learned counsel for the appellants that the tribunal, after having recorded a finding that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter under Section 7 of the Family Court Act, should not and need not have proceeded to Mat.Appeal No.368 of 2011 4 consider the merits of the claim of the appellants. 7. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the finding on point No.1 can be upheld and the finding on other points can be set aside. The O.P can be returned to the appellants for presentation before the appropriate court. 8. We are, however, satisfied that it is not necessary to interfere with the direction regarding payment of costs. That finding and direction shall remain in force. 9. In the result, a) This appeal is allowed in part. b) The finding of the court below that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter is upheld as agreed. c) The finding of the court below that the respondents are entitled to their costs is upheld. d) The Family Court shall return the O.P to the appellants/petitioners forthwith. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr Mat.Appeal No.368 of 2011 5 Mat.Appeal No.368 of 2011 6 Mat.Appeal No.368 of 2011 7 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010