IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2011 / 5TH SRAVANA 1933 Mat.Appeal.No. 544 of 2011() ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26/03/2011 IN IA.201/2011 IN OP.97/2011 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------------ SIKKANDER, S/O.LATE MOHAMMADALI, ANAS MANZIL, KIZHPADATH, KATTUSSERY AMSOM, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT: ANAS MANZIL, MURUKKUMPALLAM, VANUR, ALATHUR POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------------------- BEEPATHUMMA, W/O.SIKKANDER, KORANAMKKOD VEEDU, VAVULLIAPURAM AMSOM & DESOM, VAVULLIAPURAM P.O., ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------ Mat. Appeal NO: 544 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th July, 2011. JUDGMENT Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. This appeal is against an order which contains a composite decision on the question of maintainability of the original petition before the Family Court and an interlocutory order of temporary injunction granted in favour of the wife against evicting her and children from the property and from cutting and removing trees in that property. 2. Though initially we doubted the maintainability of this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant is justified in saying that he opted for an appeal because there is a considered order on the question of maintainability of the original proceedings, because that may be an order disposing of an issue in the original proceedings itself. Therefore, we entertain this appeal as one that is maintainable and proceed further to consider whether the appeal is to be admitted. Mat. Appeal 544/2011 2 3. The matrimonial relationship between the appellant and the respondent is not denied. The respondent has sued the appellant in relation to an item of property that stands in the name of the appellant. According to her, she and children reside in the building in the suit property. 4. The plea of the appellant-husband, before the court below, was that the subject matter of the suit is an item of immovable property and nothing in connection with the matrimony. 5. The court below found that the subject matter of the suit (petition) would fall within clause (c) of Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and accordingly over-ruled the objections of the husband on the count of maintainability. The scope and amplitude of Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act is so wide that all suits and proceedings between parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or either of them would fall within the jurisdiction of the Family Court. Therefore, we do not find any ground to admit and entertain the appeal on the question of maintainability of the suit (petition) pending before the Family Court. No prima facie case is made for admission of his appeal on that Court. 6. With this, we proceed to consider as to whether the interlocutory order of temporary injunction needs to be Mat. Appeal 544/2011 3 interfered with. Though we do not express finally as to the sustainability of an independent appeal under the Family Courts Act against an order simplicitor of temporary injunction akin to that, that would be issued to Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC, we proceed to look into grounds argued as against the injunction order. 7. Admittedly appellant and respondent have three children. The respondent-wife stays in a building in a property which stands in the name of the appellant. According to her, she is not being provided for and the appellant-husband has another wife. The order of temporary injunction granted is that the respondent and the children shall not be evicted from the house in the suit property and that the trees standing in that property shall not be felled. We do not find any error of jurisdiction, illegality, irregularity, impropriety or any perversity in appreciating the facts, by the court below in issuing the interlocutory order of temporary injunction. We say this because having regard to the objects sought to be achieved by the Family Court's Act, the intention is to provide a comprehensive and holistic consideration and disposal of the controversies, if necessary, by resorting to adjudication also, in the event of alternate disputes mechanisms failing. In this view of the matter we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. Mat. Appeal 544/2011 4 8. However, we need to sound a word of caution to the couple that having regard to the different facets of their life, including the availability of children who are stated to have grown up and also the appellant having another wife, the parties should consider seeking assistance of the Family Court for recourse to ADR mechanisms for resolving the disputes. 9. We clarify that it will be open to the appellant to bring to the notice of the Family Court any order of any other court which grants any relief in his favour as against any of the children. The Family Court would bestow due attention to such request since we see from the last paragraph of the impugned order that the protective cover of injunction is granted in favour of the children also. Subject to the aforesaid, we find no ground to admit this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed in limine. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN Judge K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj Mat. Appeal 544/2011 5