Telangana High Court
Puruhuta Agrawal, vs Anuraag Agrawal And Another on 8 January, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Civil Revision Petition No.153 OF 2019
ORDER:
Aggrieved by the docket order dated 26.12.2018 (hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned order') in I.A.No.1557 of 2018 in F.C.O.P.No.871 of 2018 on the file of learned Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad, the respondent No. 1 filed the present Civil Revision Petitions to set aside the impugned order.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the learned Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad.
3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record available before this Court are that the petitioner by name Anuraag Agrwal filed FCOP No.871 of 2018 against his wife by name Puruhuta Agrawal and M/s. Indian Bank to declare him as sole and exclusive authority to operate the bank locker Nos.35 and 517 of respondent No.2 bank and directing respondent No.2 to delete the name of respondent No.1 from the list of joint hirers of locker Nos.35 and 517 and also for consequential relief to grant perpetual injunction restraining respondent No.1 from operating the bank locker Nos.35 and
517. Along with the said OP, the petitioner has also filed 2 MGP,J Crp_153_2019 I.A.No.1557 of 2018 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act seeking temporary injunction restraining respondent No.1 from operating the said bank locker Nos.35 and 517 pending disposal of the OP. The respondent No.1 filed detailed counter with a prayer to dismiss the petition. On considering the rival contentions, the learned Judge, Family Court, Secunderabad directed both the parties to maintain status quo ante and directed the bank manager not to allow both the parties to operate the bank locker Nos.35 and 517 until further orders of the Court. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.1 has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition to set aside the impugned order.
4. Heard both sides and perused the record.
5. The brief facts, which lead the petitioner to file I.A.No.1557 of 2018 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act are that the petitioner got married to respondent No.1 on 10.02.2004 and out of their wedlock they were blessed with a baby girl on 05.10.2005. The petitioner is alleged to have been suffering from bipolar disease (experiencing severe and excessive manic depression and losing ability of reasoning and unable to understand the consequences of his conduct) and in view of acute matrimonial disturbances, 3 MGP,J Crp_153_2019 the petitioner filed divorce petition before the Family Court at Nagpur on 26.02.2013 and subsequently in view of the orders of the Honourable Supreme Court in Tr. Petition (C) No.743 of 2013 the said case was transferred to Family Court, Chaibasa, Jharkhand State with a direction to dispose of the same within 90 days. Accordingly, the said divorce petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 12.06.2015. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed First Appeal No.172 of 2015, which was dismissed for default on 20.08.2018. The petitioner and respondent No.1 have opened bank locker Nos.35 and 517 with respondent No.2 bank under joint application by executing a locker rent agreement. It is the contention of the petitioner that on 26.01.2015 the respondent No.1 had dialed 100 and tried to get the petitioner arrested and then issued email dated 27.01.2015 to respondent No.2 requesting to stop the petitioner from operating the said lockers in her absence. On 30.01.2015 the respondent No.1 and her father Mr.Shyam Sundar Lodha have fraudulently obtained primary key of bank lockers from the petitioner by mincing words and cheated the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.1 being the wife of the petitioner was aware that during the phases of manic depression it is easy to control working of petitioner's brain and thus, made the petitioner to execute letter dated 30.01.2015 in 4 MGP,J Crp_153_2019 her favour. When the said letter was executed, the petitioner alleged to have not been in a mental position to express his understanding of the said document, as such, the said letter is not binding on him. The valuable movables lying in the disputed bank locker Nos.35 and 517 are owned by the petitioner and his parents having lawful ownership, thus, at any stretch of imagination, the respondent No.1 cannot be allowed to operate and usurp the valuables lying in it. It is further contention of the petitioner that respondent No.2 is not supposed to allow either of them to operate the said bank locker Nos.35 and 517 as they have given contrary instructions against each other. Since 2015, the respondent No.2 bank restricted the operation of bank lockers but after lapse of 3 years, suddenly the respondent No.1 filed W.P.No.39030 of 2018 seeking exclusive rights to operate bank lockers without petitioner's involvement. The petitioner was regularly paying the locker rents but respondent No.1 taking undue advantage of the letter dated 30.01.2015, which was executed by the petitioner under fear, coercion and influence of bipolar disorder, the same is not legally binding on the petitioner.
6. On the other hand, the brief averments of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.1 are that the contents of 5 MGP,J Crp_153_2019 the locker are her "stridhana" and the petitioner cannot lay any claim in that respect. The respondent No.1 was constrained to call police on 26.01.2015 as the petitioner is one of his violent bout had locked the minor daughter inside the room and she was crying being helpless. So far as the email dated 27.01.2015 is concerned, the respondent No.1 was constrained to write the same as the petitioner threatened to remove all the stridhana from the locker unilaterally. The petitioner having realized his mistake gave letter dated 30.01.2015 in his own hand writing to the Manager of the bank personally, as such, the petitioner was in his full senses.
7. Though several contentions were raised by both the parties with regard to matrimonial disputes between the parties, the crux of the issues is whether the petitioner and respondent No.1, who are joint hirers of locker Nos.35 and 517, can operate the said lockers during the pendency of the main OP. As seen from the rival contentions, the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent No.1 has been strained and divorce petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the subsequent appeal was also dismissed. Whether the articles stored in the two lockers belongs to the petitioner and his parents or the stridhana of the respondent No.1, whether the 6 MGP,J Crp_153_2019 petitioner has executed letter dated 30.01.2015 out of his conscious mind or not, are the questions that can only be decided after full-fledged enquiry but not prematurely. Mere filing of W.P. No.39030 of 2018 by the respondent No.1 is not a ground precluding the trial Court to pass ex parte ad interim order, more particularly, when the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no fruitful, enforceable or injunctive orders were granted by the High Court in W.P.No.39030 of 2018.
8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/respondent No.1 that interim injunction restraining the petitioner from operating the bank lockers would virtually amount to granting the main prayer in the OP. It is to be seen that the impugned order is only an ad interim ex parte interim order passed in an interlocutory application that would subsist until further orders of the trial Court. Moreover, the impugned order not only restrained the respondent No.1 but also the petitioner from operating the locker with an intention of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that passing of impugned order amounts to granting the main prayer in the OP. Though the petitioner as well as respondent No.1 contended that the items in both the 7 MGP,J Crp_153_2019 lockers belongs to either of them exclusively, no explanation is offered by either of the parties as to what was the necessity for them to open joint lockers when the items in the lockers are exclusively belongs to either of the parties.
9. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that there is no infirmity or error apparent on the face of record in the impugned order, more particularly, when the scope of revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the findings of the trial Court is very limited to a supervisory role and can certainly not be the resort to correct every erroneous order. As seen from the grounds of revision, the revision petitioner failed to bring out any of the grounds showing that there is an error apparent on the face of the record to set aside the impugned order. Therefore, there are no merits in the Civil Revision Petition and thereby it is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Date: 08.01.2024 AS