IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25830 of 2008(Y) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 198/2008 IN OS.189/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT, RANNI .................... PETITIONER: PETITIONER/2ND DEFENDANT -------------- ACHAMA SAM, AGED 37, CHIRAMANNIL VEETTIL ANGADI MURI, ANGADI VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS SMT.SIMLA PRABHAKARAN SMT.SHIJIMOL M.MATHEW SMT.SIJI JOY SRI.RENJI GEORGE CHERIAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/JUDGEMENT DEBTOR ------------------- C.M.CHACKO, AGED 75 CHIRAMANNIL VEETTIL, ANGADI MURI, ANGADI VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK. BY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2008, ALONG WITH TPC NO. 189 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.25830 of 2008 & Tr.P.(C) No.189 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st September, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the defendant and respondent the plaintiff in O.S.No.189 of 2004, on the file of Munsiff Court, Ranny. O.S.No.189 of 2004 was filed by the respondent for evicting the petitioner from the building in Item No.I of the plaint schedule property and for a permanent prohibitory injunction in respect of the property. The case of the petitioner is that she is the daughter-in-law of the respondent and the building is her matrimonial home, and, therefore, the dispute is to be settled along with the original petition, O.P.No.584 of 2004, pending before Family court, Thiruvalla, which now stands remanded in Matrimonial Appeal No.161 of 2005. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. W.P.(C) No.25830 of 2008 etc. 2 3. The case of the respondent in O.S.No.189 of 2004 is that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and petitioner has no right in the property. If the property belongs absolutely to the respondent, father-in-law of the petitioner, petitioner cannot claim that it is her matrimonial home, and, therefore, the dispute a Family Dispute, as provided under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, to be tried by the Family Court. I.A.No.198 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner to get that suit transferred to Family Court, Thiruvalla, raising the very same contention. Under Ext.P1 order, learned Munsiff rejecting the claim dismissed the application. Writ Petition, W.P. (C) No.25830 of 2008, is filed to quash the same. Learned counsel submitted that the writ petition may be dismissed as withdrawn. 4. The argument of the learned counsel is that there is collusion between the respondent and husband of the petitioner and the attempt is to get petitioner ousted from the matrimonial home, and, therefore, the question is a dispute W.P.(C) No.25830 of 2008 etc. 3 coming under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act. As rightly found by learned Munsiff, it cannot be said that it is a family dispute, and, therefore, to be tried by the Family court. 5. Under Section 24 of Code of Civil Procedure, the case from one Court could be transferred to another Court, only if the latter court is competent to try the suit. When O.S.No.189 of 2004 is not a suit to be tried by Family Court, as it does not relate to a family dispute, the case cannot be transferred as sought for. Transfer Petition is dismissed. At last, counsel submitted that the writ petition may be dismissed as not pressed, it is dismissed as not pressed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.