IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931 Mat.Appeal.No. 3 of 2003(F) --------------------------- OP.836/1998 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER ------------------------ JANIE JACOB, D/O. JACOB MATHEW, RESIDING AT 10/338, KOTTAYIL BUNGALOW, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.S.R.DAYANANDA PRABHU SRI.K.S.RAJESH RESPONDENT: --------------- VINEETH CHANDY JACOB, S/O. P.C.CHANDY, PARAKKAT HOUSE, PERUMBRAMUVU, KEEZHVAIPUR PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, EMPLOYED AS LECTURER, RAMAYYA COLLEGE OF PHARMACY, M.S.R.I.T. POST, MATHIKKARA, BANGALORE 560 054 ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) FOR R1 SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. FOR R1 THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------ Mat.Appeal No.3 of 2003 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The appellant/wife has come to this Court aggrieved by the order passed by the Family Court returning the petition filed by her against the respondent, her former husband, claiming compensation and return of money. 2. Fundamental facts are not in dispute. The marriage between the parties had taken place on 11.09.1997. The marital tie remained only for a short period of time. Both parties are educated and for 17 days they appear to have lived together - 2 days in Coimbatore, 6 days in Bangalore, 4 days in Aluva and 5 days at Pathanamthitta. The parental home of the appellant is at Aluva; whereas the parental home of the respondent is at Pathanamthitta. The marriage had taken place admittedly at Pathanamthitta. The parties could not continue the relationship. They came to this Court and this Court by order dt.20.08.1998 in Divorce O.P.No.9542 of 1998 directed dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty. According to the appellant, at the time when the said order was passed, there was an Mat.Appeal No.3 of 2003 2 undertaking/understanding in the presence of their counsel at Kochi that all the properties in the hands of the respondent shall be returned to the appellant. According to the appellant that undertaking was not implemented. 3. Later in 1998 itself, the appellant filed O.P.No.l836 of 1998 before the Family Court at Ernakulam. She claimed compensation for the cruelty endured by her at the hands of the respondent. According to her such cruelty was inflicted at all the 4 places where they lived together. She further contended that as agreed at Kochi at the time of divorce, the properties etc. were not returned. According to the appellant, part of the cause action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the Family Court at Ernakulam and hence the O.P was filed before that Court. 4. An objection to territorial jurisdiction was raised. By the impugned order the Family Court on 02.01.2003 directed that the plaint be returned for presentation before the proper court having territorial jurisdiction. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in any view of the matter, the order of the court below directing return of the plaint is not justified. The claim for compensation for 4 days of miseries suffered at Aluva is, at any rate, to be Mat.Appeal No.3 of 2003 3 taken cognizance of by the Family Court, Ernakulam. The learned counsel further submits that at the time of divorce there was an undertaking and on the basis of that undertaking which took place at Kochi within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Ernakulam also, the Family Court, Ernakulam is competent to consider the claim of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the interests of justice will in no way be affected by directing the Family Court to dispose of the matter as both parties are not now residents within the jurisdiction of the court at Thiruvalla or the court at Ernakulam. Both of them are residing elsewhere, it is submitted. The return of the claim does not, in these circumstances, satisfy the interests of justice also, points out the learned counsel. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order. The counsel submits that though there was an agreement regarding return of articles, when the divorce was effected as per the order of the High Court, such obligations were only to come into play after the entire matters are settled and not otherwise. The fact that there was such an agreement/understanding is not seen seriously disputed at the Bar. Mat.Appeal No.3 of 2003 4 7. Be that as it may, for the short reason at least that the claim for compensation for 4 days of cruelty inflicted on the appellant at Aluva squarely falls within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Ernakulam, we are satisfied that the Family Court, Ernakulam should have entertained the claim on merits. We find the impugned order to be unacceptable. 8. In the result: a) This appeal is allowed; b) The impugned order is set aside; c) The parties are directed to appear before the Family Court, Ernakulam personally or through pleader on 31.07.09; d) The Family Court, Ernakulam shall proceed to dispose of the same on merits as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 6 months from 31.07.09. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/-