IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2011 / 29TH POUSHA 1932 OP(C).No. 234 of 2011(O) ------------------------ OS.558/2006 OF ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. VIJAYAMBIKA ANTHARJANAM, KARTHIKA, POOVATHOOR PADINJARU MURI, KULAKKODE VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. SOUMINI ANTHARJANAM, D/O. VIJAYAMBIKA ANTHARJANAM, KARTHIKA, POOVATHOOR PADINJARU MURI, KULAKKODE VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ G. SREEKUMAR, MEKHAM, CHANDRAMANGALAM, ANAD.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 544. THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. -------------------------------------- O.P.(Civil) No.234 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The Original Petition is filed by defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.558 of 2006 on the file of the court of the Additional Munsiff of Nedumangad. By the order impugned, the court below held that the civil court has jurisdiction to try the suit and that the family court does not have jurisdiction. 2. The suit was filed by the respondent for partition claiming share in the property on the ground that he is the son of Geetheshswararu Pandarathil. The plaintiff contended that his mother was married by Geetheshswararu Pandarathil in 1962 and the plaintiff was born in that wedlock. The plaintiff contended that the second defendant is the daughter of the first defendant born O.P.(Civil) No.234/2011 2 in an illicit relationship between the first defendant and Geetheshswararu Pandarathil. Thus, the plaintiff claimed half share. Later, the plaint was amended claiming a 2/3rd share. That amendment application was allowed. A question of jurisdiction was raised at a belated stage in the additional written statement filed after the amendment of the plaint. The court below considered the objection regarding jurisdiction and held that the civil court has the jurisdiction. I am of the view that the order passed by the court below is right, going by the decision of the Division Bench in Suprabha vs. Sivaraman (2006(1) KLT 712). 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Division Bench decision in Syamaladevi vs. Sarala Devi and others (2009(1) KLJ 646) would apply to the facts of the case. It is contended that the Division Bench held that in respect of a dispute between two persons claiming to be the wifes of the deceased, for family pension, the case would be O.P.(Civil) No.234/2011 3 maintainable before the Family Court. It was held that clause (d) of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act would apply in such case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the court below was right in holding that the civil court has jurisdiction to try the suit. Accordingly, the Original Petition is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl