IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1933 Tr.P(C).No. 386 of 2011() ----------------------------------- OS.372/2011 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, ALUVA TO THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM. .................... PETITIONER: -------------------- SUHARA SULAIMAN, D/O. SULAIMAN. K.A, VELUTHEDATH HOUSE, PURAYAR KARA, CHENGAMANADU VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.BABU KUMAR, SRI.P.YADHU KUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. SEENATH, NADAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PURAYAR KARA, CHENGAMANADU VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK - 683 578. 2. SHEEJA, W/O. ABDUL LATHEEF, KARUVELIL HOUSE, H. NO. 3/925 (33/214) KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, THRIKKAKARA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK - 683 104. BY THIS TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs Tr.P(C).No. 386 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:- ANNEX. A1- TRUE COPY OF THE O.P NO. 1995/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 15/10/2011. ANNEX. A2- TRUE COPY OF THE O.S NO. 372/2011 BY RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ALUVA DATED 02/11/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Tr.P.(C) No.386 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November, 2011. ORDER This petition is for transfer of O.S.No.372 of 2011 from the court of learned Munsiff, Aluva to the Family Court, Ernakulam. 2. Petitioner has filed O.P.No.1995 of 2011 in the Family Court, Ernakulam to set aside a settlement deed executed by her father-in-law in favour of the respondents and for recovery of `15,00,000/-. According to the petitioner, settlement deed was executed by the father-in-law to defeat the decree that may be passed in favour of petitioner. In the meantime, respondents filed O.S.No.372 of 2011 in the court of learned Munsiff seeking a decree for prohibitory injunction to restrain petitioner interfering with their (alleged) possession of the suit property. According to the petitioner, O.S.No.372 of 2011 is to be tried by the Family Court, Ernakulam in view of the pendency of O.P.No.1995 of 2011 and in view of Section 7(1)(d) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (for short, “the Act”). 3. Learned counsel has invited my attention to a decision of the Division Bench in Vasumathi v. Valsan (2011 (3) KLT 638) to contend that in a similar situation, the Division Bench has held that civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for injunction and as the matter came within the Tr.P(C) No.386/2011 2 purview of Sec.7(1)(d) of the Act, the civil court is to transfer the records of the case to the Family Court concerned for trial of the case along with the case pending in the said Family Court. 4. If petitioner has a contention that O.S.No.372 of 2011 is not maintainable in the civil court, petitioner has to raise that contention before that court as provided under law. Petitioner, I am told, has not filed written statement in O.S.No.372 of 2011. In that view of the matter it is open to the petitioner to raise the plea that the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, request learned Munsiff to consider that question as provided under law and invite a decision on that question. That being the proper course, I am not inclined to think that this petition for transfer is to be entertained at this stage. Resultantly this transfer petition is disposed of without prejudice to the right of petitioner to raise the contention before learned Munsiff, Aluva as to the maintainability of O.S.No.372 of 2011 in that court and to request that court to decide the question of maintainability as provided under law. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion as to the maintainability or otherwise of the suit before the civil court. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks