IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2009 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 11227 of 2009(R) ----------------------------------------- O.P.NO.1413/07 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR. PETITIONER(S): --------------- SINDHU SIDHARTHAN, W/O.SIDHARTHAN, 4-H,CHELUR TOWERS, POOTHOLE DESOM THRISSUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SIDHARTHANK.K.S/O.KOPRA KUNJIMON MANATHALA AMSOM AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER RAJAN,S/O.KOPRA APPU, MANATHALA AMSOM AND DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. ADV. SRI.RAJIT FOR RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 11227 of 2009-R ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner and the respondent are spouses. Though an application for dissolution of the marital tie is pending, their relationship as spouses does now continue. The petitioner/ wife is an educated woman holding M.Com. and LLB degrees; whereas the respondent is said to be having formal education not beyond the 4th standard. He is a successful businessman. He is wealthy. The marriage took place in 1994. Two children were born in the wed-lock. The husband was employed abroad. He had executed a Power-of-Attorney in favour of his wife in the year 2006 to manage his affairs including his business and properties. 2. For certain reasons perceived by the husband, he W.P.(c) No. 11227 of 2009-R -: 2 :- allegedly became suspicious about the attitude of the wife/petitioner herein. He therefore on 7/2/07 allegedly executed a cancellation deed revoking the Power-of-Attorney executed in 2006 in favour of his wife. It is the case of the respondent that he had duly intimated the petitioner of such cancellation. Notwithstanding such intimation (which was refused by her) after 7/2/07, there was a spree execution of documents by the petitioner on the strength of the Power-of- Attorney which, according to the respondent, was cancelled on 7/2/07. Four documents executed by her relate to Hotel Sidhartha Regency at Thrissur and the quarters for employees. Two such documents are executed by the petitioner – Power-of- Attorney/wife in her own favour. Two others are executed in the name of another person who is described by the respondent to be the paramour of his wife. It is, in these circumstances, that the respondent went before the Family Court and filed O.P.No.1413/07. Various reliefs were claimed. 3. Interim directions were also sought. The Family Court by Ext.P6 order dated 13/2/08 passed the order which appears to have given rise to all further controversies. The order reads as follows: W.P.(c) No. 11227 of 2009-R -: 3 :- “For counter and enquiry. Meanwhile parties are directed to maintain status quo” 4. Status quo was not ascertained by any one admittedly. But the learned Judge directed maintenance of status quo. This gave rise to a lot of disputes as to what status quo was. Each party asserted that his assertion about the status quo was correct. 5. The petitioner herein was, in these circumstances, obliged to come before this Court with an earlier writ petition – W.P.(c) No.9325/08. That petition was ultimately disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment dated 23/9/08. The crux of the conclusion in Ext.P9 is that the petitioner must approach the Family Court and seek further directions if she needs them. It is observed as follows: “If at all such a clarification is required, it is open to the petitioner to move the court below which is not done.” Later, after W.P.(c) NO.9325/08 was disposed of under Ext.P9 judgment, the petitioner approached the Family Court seeking further directions by filing Ext.P10 application. That application is Ext.P10 and the same is disposed of by Ext.P11 order which is W.P.(c) No. 11227 of 2009-R -: 4 :- impugned in this writ petition. 6. The situation is certainly tricky and intriguing. The respondent was the owner of the property and he had executed a Power-of-Attorney in favour of his wife. He was employed abroad. He had revoked the Power-of-Attorney on 7/2/07. Subsequent to that date documents have been executed by the petitioner in favour of herself and others conveying the properties of her husband. The basic question is whether such transactions are true, valid, legal, genuine and acceptable. The husband in the earlier proceedings before this Court in W.P.(c) No.9325/08 had conceded that he does not intend to forcibly dispossess his wife considering the nature of the relationship between them. That is how the Power-of-Attorney/the petitioner herein is continuing to manage the property/business in spite of revocation of the Power-of-Attorney. The petitioner now submits that the clarification issued by the Family Court places her in a position worse than what it was earlier. She is practically rendered helpless and is unable to run the business. In the light of the stand taken by the husband in the earlier proceedings – statement filed by the counsel and marked as Ext.P7, the wife should be permitted to run the business, argues the learned counsel for the petitioner. W.P.(c) No. 11227 of 2009-R -: 5 :- 7. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the contrary, contends that he, in law, continues to be the owner of the property. Notwithstanding the fraudulent execution of the assignment deeds by the petitioner in favour of the petitioner herself and others, after the execution of the document revoking the Power-of-Attorney document, if the revocation of the Power- of-Attorney is valid, the petitioner cannot continue to act on behalf of the respondent. If, on the contrary, the execution of the document is valid and correct, the respondent cannot be made liable to continue to be the licensees for the business run by others. Either way, continuance of business in the name of the husband is harmful to him and does affect his rights, complains the learned counsel for the respondent. 8. We find merit in the contentions of the respondent. If the respondent continues to be the owner of the property, he cannot be compelled to run the business through his wife his former Power-of-Attorney as the Power-of-Attorney document has been revoked by now. On the contrary, if the petitioner or other assignees under her have become owners of the property the respondent cannot be compelled to lend his name for running their business. If such permission were granted to the petitioner to run the business with the name of the respondent W.P.(c) No. 11227 of 2009-R -: 6 :- as licnesee, he will be liable for all acts committed by those in management now and it is not improbable or unreasonable that they may try to implicate the respondent unnecessarily and vexatiously, contends the learned counsel for the respondent. We find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent. We are dissatisfied that a vague order of status quo has been granted in favour of the petitioner. But we are satisfied now that the said order having remained for a long period of time and the petitioner having continued to run the business thereafter, in the interests of both sides, a Receiver can be appointed to run the business of Hotel Sidhartha. Appropriate conditions must be imposed. Necessary safeguards can be taken from such Receiver. We are satisfied that the prayer of the petitioner to permit her to continue to run the business as Receiver under the supervision of the court and subject to appropriate and strict conditions can be permitted. The other details can be worked out and stipulated by the Family Court. The Receiver shall function under direct supervision of the court and directions/permission/approval of the court shall be taken in all matters of substance. The respondent shall be at liberty to point out to the court any objectionable acts committed by the petitioner as Receiver. Appropriate directions can be W.P.(c) No. 11227 of 2009-R -: 7 :- sought by both parties from the Family Court from time to time. Needless to say, the Receiver will be liable to account to the court. 9. In the result: (a) This writ petition is allowed in part. (b) The Family Court is directed to issue orders appointing the petitioner as a Receiver to run the business of Hotel Sidhartha till the disposal of O.P.No.1413/07. (c) The Family Court must ensure that appropriate conditions are imposed and the Receiver runs the property in a just and fair manner without causing any prejudice to the interests of the respondent. We do not deem it necessary to issue specific directions about the conditions to be imposed on the Receiver. We leave it to the Family Court to issue appropriate directions. 10. Hand over a copy of this judgment to both counsel. They shall produce the same before the Family Court immediately. The Registry shall also communicate the directions to the Family Court. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent prays and we find the said prayer to be absolutely justified that the Family Court may be directed to dispose of O.P.No.1413/07 as W.P.(c) No. 11227 of 2009-R -: 8 :- expeditiously as possible. The same has to be done by the Family Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that certain preliminary objections have been raised. If it deserves to be considered, the same shall be done by the Family Court. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR Nan/ (Judge) //true copy// P.S. to Judge W.P.(c) No. 11227 of 2009-R -: 9 :-