IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2009 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1930 Mat.Appeal.No. 111 of 2004() ---------------------------- OP.21/1998 of FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER. ------------------------------------ SANTHA S.MENON, D/O.ACHUTHAN NAIR, MOOTHANA HOUSE, KOZHIPPARA, PARITHIPARA, SHORANUR. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI RESPONDENT : RESPONDENT. -------------------------- SIVASANKARA MENON, S/O.RUGHMANI AMMA, SIVSHAKTHI CONSTRUCTIONS AND ENGINEERING PRODUCTS, VANIYAMKULAM. ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/03/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMAN & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- Mat. Appeal NO.111 of 2004 ----------------------------------- DATED:MARCH 13, 2009. JUDGMENT Raman, J. The appellant is the petitioner in O.P.21/1998 on the file of the Family Court, Thrissur. That is a petition for recovery of amount, prohibitory injunction etc. against the respondent/husband. The appellant/wife contended that their marriage was solemnized on 6.9.1978, that the respondent was managing a company belonging to her and appropriating the income. He defaulted payment of dues to the Electricity Board, also committed default of payment of dues to the KFC and attachment was effected by them. An amount of Rs.6 lakhs is said to be due to the KFC. Amounts are also due to the Electricity Board. When notice was received from the Sales Tax Officer, the respondent/husband took the stand that the entire documents are executed by the wife and he is not responsible for the same. The company is insured with the United India Insurance Company. When attempt was made to get the insurance amount, the Mat. Appeal NO.111 of 2004 :2: respondent was not co-operating and he continued to misappropriate the funds. Hence the OP was filed for recovery of the amount of Rs.6 lakhs said to be due to the KFC and Electricity Board with interest thereon. 2. The respondent contended that the petition lacks bona fides. He admits the marriage and now the petitioner/appellant is residing in a rented home. Subsequently a divorce O.P. was filed by the wife on the ground of adultery, which was pending before the Ottappalam Sub Court as OP No.7/1998 and now it is submitted that subsequently it has been decreed and an appeal filed therefrom is also dismissed. Thus, the marriage between the parties have been dissolved by a decree granted by a competent court. The allegation raised in the petition that he was misappropriating funds from the company was denied by him. There were other disputes between the parties. The petitioner/appellant has not executed any power-of-attorney. The respondent has not conducted the unit independently, there was no agreement to pay any dues to the KFC. In short, the liability was denied by him in toto. Mat. Appeal NO.111 of 2004 :3: 3. Necessary issues were raised by the court below. The evidence consists of P.W.1 and RWs.1 and 2 and documentary evidence of Exts.A1 to A11, B1 to B15 and X1 and X2. The court below, after an elaborate consideration of the matter based on the evidence adduced, came to the conclusion that though there is a power-of-attorney, that does not give any power to the husband to manage the industrial unit and keep an account for the same and remit the dues to the Electricity Board or the KFC. Therefore, even as per Ext.A3 document, there is no specific reference to any industrial unit by its name. Therefore it was found that there was no entrustment of the industrial unit with the husband based on Ext.A3 and Ext.A3 was intended only for sale of the property. Further, there is no signature of the parties or witnesses in Ext.A3. Since the whole entrustment was pleaded placing reliance on Ext.A3 and Ext.A3 contained no clause with particular reference to the industrial unit in question, the O.P. was dismissed. 4. As a matter of fact, no relief was claimed by the wife because of their relationship as husband and wife. Mat. Appeal NO.111 of 2004 :4: But the whole claim was based on principal-agent relationship. It is doubtful whether such a dispute will come within the ambit of sec.7 of the Family Court Act. However, the parties did not join issue on the question of jurisdiction and therefore it is unnecesssary to go into this question. However, we find from the evidence on record since the whole case was rested on Ext.A3 which did not contain any clause appointing the respondent here as an agent of the petitioner/appellant, the entrustment pleaded was found against and we do not find any illegality in the conclusion so reached by the Family Court. This being the only point urged and considered, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order under appeal. Accordingly the Mat. Appeal is dismissed. No costs. P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. P.S. GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. mt/-