S.Haneef @ Syed Mohammed Haneef vs K.Ayeesha @ Ayeesha Begum
2021 Latest Caselaw 9181 Mad

                                                                            C.R.P.(NPD).No.758 of 2021


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED: 07.04.2021

                                                       CORAM:

                                    THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

                                             C.R.P.(NPD).No.758 of 2021
                                             and C.M.P.No.6265 of 2021


                   S.Haneef @ Syed Mohammed Haneef                                  .. Petitioner

                                                           Vs.

                   K.Ayeesha @ Ayeesha Begum                                        .. Respondent



                   PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the

                   Constitution of India, to set aside the petition and order passed in E.P.No.28

                   of 2020 in O.S.No.98 of 2012 passed by the Learned IV Additional Family

                   Court Judge at Chennai dated 03.03.2021.



                                          For Petitioner     : Mr.S.Parthasarathy


                                                       *********




                  1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                  C.R.P.(NPD).No.758 of 2021


                                                          ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the petition

and order passed in E.P.No.28 of 2020 in O.S.No.98 of 2012 passed by the

Learned IV Additional Family Court Judge at Chennai dated 03.03.2021.

2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.98 of 2012 on the file of the IV

Additional Family Court at Chennai is the revision petitioner herein. The

said suit was filed taking advantage of Order 7 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil

Procedure read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, seeking a

declaration that an alleged Talaq dated 10.01.2012 and 10.02.2012

pronounced by the plaintiff is valid. Naturally, the object of the suit was to

severe the marital relationship with the defendant, his own wife. Parties

went to trial. The plaintiff herein had filed Exs.A1 to A42, the defendant

had filed Exs.B1 to B12. Finally by Judgment dated 08.01.2020 the learned

IV Additional Family Court Judge at Chennai thought it fit to dismiss the

suit and a direction was given that the petitioner herein should return 30

sovereigns of jewels of the respondent to her within one month from

08.01.2020. One month would have expired on 8th of February 2020.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD).No.758 of 2021

3. In January and February 2020 there was no threat of Covid - 19.

The claim of the petitioner that he had already pledged the jewels, in view of

the Covid situation cannot be countenanced. An obligation was placed on

him to make ready the jewels within the period of 30 days from 08.01.2020

and return the same to the respondent herein.

4. Since the jewels were not handed back, an Execution Petition in

E.P.No.28 of 2020 came to be filed. It went on for a considerable period of

time. A counter was also filed by the petitioner herein. The main contention

in the counter was that the respondent herein had not filed any interim

application seeking return of the jewels, but the IV Additional Family Court

Judge at Chennai had passed a Judgment including return of the jewels. It

was contended that when the respondent had not claimed the jewels either in

the written statement or in the proof affidavit or in any application, such a

direction cannot be passed.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD).No.758 of 2021

5. Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the petitioner stated as

against the said Judgment that the petitioner herein had filed an Appeal Suit

in A.S.No.88 of 2021 which is also pending. The learned counsel may

therefore seek appropriate orders from the Appellate Court. In the

Execution Petition, since the jewels were not returned, an order of arrest had

been directed. The learned Judge had also relied under Section 18 of the

Family Courts Act, which grants powers to the Family Court to execute the

orders as prescribed under Order 21 Rule 31 of the CPC.

6. Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the petitioner also

sought the indulgence of this Court to hold over the order of arrest. I would

state that since the appeal had been filed as against the Judgment, it would

only be appropriate that the Appellate Court examines the issue in

accordance with law. At this stage, passing any Interlocutory Order will

also not be proper.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD).No.758 of 2021

7. With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition is

dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is

also closed.

07.04.2021 Index : Yes / No Web : Yes / No rna

To

The IV Additional Family Court, Chennai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.R.P.(NPD).No.758 of 2021

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J

rna

C.R.P.(NPD).No.758 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.6265 of 2021

07.04.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/