IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2009 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14484 of 2009(R) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02/04/2009 IN IA 553/09 IN OP.807/2005 of FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): 1ST COUNTER PETITIONER/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------ MARY DOLLY @ SARALA, W/O. LATE MANUEL POULOSE, MANU VILLA, V.P.9/219, PERINGAMALA, KALLIYOOR P.O., VENGANOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & 2ND COUNTER PETITIONER/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. G.SIVASANKAR, S/O. GOPINATHAN NAIR, 'GOPI SADANAM', VENGANOOR, VENGANOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MARY J.M.PRASANTH, RAGAM HOUSE, TC 15/609, UDARASIROMANI ROAD, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARIRANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.(C).No.14484 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May 2009 J U D G M E N T BASANT,J The petitioner claims to be the wife of one deceased Manuel Poulose. She has approached the Family Court with a petition for declaration of her status as the widow of the said Manuel Poulose and for relief regarding the property held by the said Manuel Poulose. The 2nd respondent, who also claims to be the wife of the deceased Manuel Poulose, is the sole respondent in the O.P. During the pendency of that petition, the 1st respondent herein filed an application for impleadment. He contended that he is a bona fide transferee for consideration from the 2nd respondent herein. He, therefore, prayed that he may be given opportunity to come on record and contest the proceedings. 2. The application was opposed by the petitioner herein. The learned Judge of the Family Court, by the impugned order, allowed the petition and permitted the 1st respondent to come on record. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. She contends that impleadment of the 1st respondent is W.P.(C)No. 2 not justified inasmuch as he is not a party to the marriage and therefore under explanation (c) to Section 7 of the Family Court Act, the dispute between him and the petitioner will not be covered. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. We are not persuaded to agree that there is any justification in the challenge raised against the impugned order in this writ petition. We are not persuaded to agree that the impugned order deserves or warrants interference by invocation of the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. If not under Section 7(c), under Section 7(d) certainly the dispute between the 1st respondent and the petitioner can be taken cognizance of by the Family Court. Moreover, it is submitted that the transaction between the 1st and 2nd respondents falls within the purview of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. In that view of the matter also, the impleadment of the 1st petitioner and liberty given to him to contest the proceedings cannot be said to be unjustified even assuming that the proceedings fall under explanation (c) to Section 7 . 4. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARIRANI, JUDGE) jsr W.P.(C)No. 3 W.P.(C)No. 4 R.BASANT &C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 06/02/2009