Prakash N.P vs Renjitha R.S
2021 Latest Caselaw 466 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

                                     &

                 THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA

    THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942

                          OP (FC).No.8 OF 2021

       AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 1165/2015 OF FAMILY
                     COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM


PETITIONER/S:

                PRAKASH N.P
                AGED 56 YEARS
                S/O PURUSHOTHAMAN,
                RESIDING AT 315/FF9,
                P T CHACKO NAGAR,
                HOUSING BOARD BUILDING,
                MEDICAL COLLEGE P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

                BY ADV. SRI.K.SHAJ

RESPONDENT/S:

                RENJITHA R.S
                AGED 48 YEARS
                D/O SARALAMMA, T C 18/1616(1), SRAVANA, ARAMADA P O,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-32.


     THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.01.2021, ALONG WITH OP (FC).10/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP (FC).No.8 & 10 OF 2021                2


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

                                     &

                THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA

   THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942

                        OP (FC).No.10 OF 2021

       AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 56/2015 OF FAMILY
                        COURT,TRIVANDRUM


PETITIONER/S:

                PRAKASH N.P
                AGED 56 YEARS
                S/O. PURUSHOTHAMAN, RESIDING AT 315/FF9, P.T CHACKO
                NAGAR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

                BY ADV. SRI.K.SHAJ

RESPONDENT/S:

                RENJITHA R.S
                AGED 48 YEARS
                D/O. SARALAMMA, T.C. 18/1616(1), SRAVANA, ARAMADA
                P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 32.


     THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.01.2021, ALONG WITH OP (FC).8/2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP (FC).No.8 & 10 OF 2021               3


                               JUDGMENT

[ OP (FC).8/2021, OP (FC).10/2021 ]

Dated this the 7th day of January 2021

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

Both these original petitions are filed by the same petitioner, the

husband, who has instituted multiple proceedings against the wife.

2. We will refer to O.P.(F.C.)No.10/2021 since all the

litigations are referred to therein. O.P.(HMA)No.56/2015 was filed by

the petitioner for divorce. O.P.No.151/2015 was filed for an injunction

against the wife from visiting their son in the school and from

disturbing him at his workplace. O.P.No.1165/2015 is filed for

declaration of title of a property, which is jointly owned by the

petitioner and respondent. O.P.No.2375/2017 was filed by the wife

for return of gold and money entrusted to the husband. These were

clubbed together and tried. Evidence is said to have been closed. The

prayer in O.P.(F.C.)No.8/2021 is for an early disposal of the said

litigations in which evidence has been closed.

3. However, O.P.(F.C.)No.10/2021 takes quiet a contrary

stance. After the evidence was closed in the aforesaid proceedings

allegedly in December, 2019, the petitioner initiated two other

litigations before the Family Court. O.P.No.148/2020 was filed to

restrain the wife by an injunction from trespassing into the property,

which is the subject matter of O.P 1165/2015 and later alleging such

trespass and dispossession there was another suit filed as

O.P.No.434/2020 seeking recovery of possession. Two interlocutory

applications were filed in O.P.No.56/2015, the application for divorce,

for joint trial and for reopening of evidence clubbing the two later

litigations also along with the first four. The petitioner, in

O.P.No.10/2021 seeks disposal of Exts.P5 and P6 original petitions

along with Ext.P1 to P4 original petitions or for disposing of Exts.P7

and P8 applications within a period.

4. We are of the opinion that the entire stalemate was caused

by the petitioner's claim for joint trial filed in O.P.No.56/2015 by

I.A.784/2020, pending which, the Family Court could not dispose of

the other four original petitions in which evidence stood closed.

Already there was a suit for declaration of title of the joint property

filed as O.P.No.151/2015. If the petitioner was apprehensive of a

trespass, he could have sought an injunction in that suit; which in

any event could have turned out difficult since the respondent is a co-

owner. Further, if there was a dispossession of the petitioner from the

property, then suit filed for declaration of title could have been

amended to incorporate the said prayer. However, the petitioner

chose to file two separate litigations. We cannot but observe that in

O.P 1165 of 2015 while a declaration of title is the first relief; the

second is for a direction to deposit the money admittedly received

from the respondent to purchase the property. We do not say anything

more lest it interfere with the fair adjudication.

5. At this stage, when evidence is over in the four petitions,

we do not think that a joint trial can be ordered by us. In the above

circumstances, we are of the opinion that the delay if any caused is

only by reason of the multiple litigations initiated by the petitioner.

The petitioner would have to approach the Family Court for

appropriate decision and these original petitions are misconceived.

We reject the original petitions in limine and direct the Registry to

forward a copy of our judgment to the concerned Court. We make it

clear that the observations we made here are prima facie in nature,

for the sole purpose of declining jurisdiction under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India and the same shall not govern the adjudication

of the petitions.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN

JUDGE

Sd/-

                                                M.R.ANITHA

SHG                                                  JUDGE



             APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 8/2021
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1           THE TRUE COPY OF THE OP (HMA)NO 56/2015

FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FOR DIVORCE.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OP NO 151/2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OP NO 1165/2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OP NO 2375/2017 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 10/2021 PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OP(HMA) NO.56/2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FOR DIVORCE.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OP NO. 151/2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OP NO.1165/2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OP NO.2375/2017 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OP NO. 148/2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OP NO. 434/2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.784/2020 IN OP NO. 56/2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,

EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.785/2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OP NO. 56/2015 BEFORE THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.