Kerala High Court
K.A.Ruby vs K.A.Muhammed on 29 February, 2024
Author: Anu Sivaraman
Bench: Anu Sivaraman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024/10TH PHALGUNA, 1945
MAT.APPEAL NO. 410 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.02.2022 I.A. Nos.3/22021 &
6/2021 IN OP NO.1331 OF 2021 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
K.A.RUBY,
AGED 38/2021 YEARS, D/O. K.M.ABDUL KHADAR,
WOODLANDS, 13/462, SARAYU NAGAR,
CHANDRANAGAR POST, PIN - 678007
BY ADVS.
ATUL SOHAN
SREEJA SOHAN K.
R.REJI (ATTINGAL)
VINAI JOHN
K.V.SOHAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
K.A.MUHAMMED,
AGED 48/2021 YEARS, S/O.K.M.ABDUL,
KHADER MANZIL, BAKEL KUNNAL,
PALLIKKARA POST, BAKKEL,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT 671318
NOW AT RUBY MEHAR APPARELS,
12/707 (13/463), CHANDRANAGAR POST,
PALAKKAD 678007.
BY ADVS.
T.I.ABDUL SALAM
K.R.MONISHA
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
13.2.2024, THE COURT ON 29.02.2024 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Mat. Appeal 410/2022
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 29th day of February, 2024
C. Pratheep Kumar, J.
This appeal is filed by the petitioner/wife in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in
O.P. No.1331 of 2021 on the file of Family Court, Palakkad, against the
order dated 16.2.2022.
2. She filed I.A. No.3 of 2021 praying for an interim prohibitory
injunction against respondent, who is her husband. As against A schedule
property, she is claiming an interim injunction restraining the respondent
and his men from alienating or encumbering the A schedule residential
house property, trespassing into the A schedule property, committing
waste therein and also from interfering with the peaceful residence of the
petitioner in the building therein. As against B schedule property, she is
claiming an interim injunction restraining the respondent from
obstructing her from conducting business in the ground floor of the
building therein.
3. According to the petitioner, petition A schedule property belongs
to her and it was purchased using her own money. B schedule property
was purchased by using her own money in the name of the respondent.
She constructed a commercial building in the B schedule property and
started business in the said building in the name and style 'Genesis
Trendsetters'. During the year 2017, in connection with the 3rd delivery,
she could not go to her business place for 17 months. During the said
period, the respondent had taken possession of the B schedule building
and thereafter, she was not permitted to continue business in the B
schedule building.
4. Further, according to the petitioner, at the instance of the
respondent, she had executed a Gift Deed in respect of A schedule
property in favour of the respondent. The respondent undertook that even
though such a Gift Deed is executed in his favour, she will continue to be
the title holder of the property and that execution of such a document in
his favour was necessary as advised by an astrologer. She filed the
injunction application alleging that the respondent was interfering with
her residence in the A schedule property as well as the business in the B
Schedule property.
5. The respondent filed I.A.No.6 of 2021 praying for vacating the
interim injunction already granted in favour of the petitioner. He stoutly
denied all the claims of the petitioner and according to him, A schedule
and B schedule properties exclusively belong to him. According to the
respondent, in the year 2014, the marital relationship between himself
and the petitioner got strained and accordingly they have decided to
dissolve the marriage between them. As part of the understanding, the
petitioner executed a Gift Deed in respect of A schedule property in his
name. Further, according to him, as per the understanding, an agreement
was entered into between the parties and the petitioner also executed an
irrevocable Power of Attorney in his favour permitting him to conduct the
business in the B schedule building. According to him, the petitioner
obtained the interim injunction suppressing the facts. Therefore, he
prayed for vacating the interim injuction.
6. Admittedly, at present, the petitioner is residing in the A
schedule property. It is also admitted that at present, the respondent is
doing business in the B schedule property. Admittedly, after 2017, the
petitioner could not do business in the building in the B schedule
property. Now, the respondent is the title holder of A and B schedule
properties. The contention of the petitioner that though the title Deeds
are standing in the name of the respondent, she is the owner of the A and
B schedule properties can be ascertained only after taking evidence in the
O.P. In the light of the evidence available at present, the finding of the
learned Family Court Judge that the petitioner is entitled to get an interim
injunction to protect her residence in the A schedule property and that the
respondent is entitled to get an injunction against the petitioner for
conducting his business in the B schedule property could not be found
fault with.
7. In view of the evidence available at present, we do not find any
irregularity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned
Family Court Judge. Therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN,
JUDGE
Sd/-
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR,
JUDGE
sou.
APPENDIX OF MAT.APPEAL 410/2022
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE1 TRUE COPY OF O.P. 1331/2021 ON THE FILE OF
THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD
ANNEXURE2 TRUE COPY OF I.A 3/2021 IN O.P. 1331/2021
ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT,PALAKKAD
ANNEXURE3 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER TO I.A 3/2021 IN
O.P. 1331/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY
COURT, PALAKKAD
ANNEXURE4 TRUE COPY OF I.A 6/2021 IN O.P. 1331/2021
ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT,PALAKKAD
ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE I A NO.2/2022 IN 0 P
NO.1373/2022 OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD.
ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMISSIONER'S
REPORT DATED 26.11.2022 WITH THE
APPLICATION DATED 17.11.2022 FOR ISSUE OF
COMMISSION IN I A NO.3/2022 THE ORDER DATED
18.11.2022 OF THE FAMILY COURT PALAKKAD,
NOTICE OF VISIT BY THE COMMISSIONER DATED
19.11.2022
ANNEXURE A3 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE BUILDING AND PREMISES IN
PETITION `A' SCHEDULE IN O.P 1331/2021 OF
THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD
