Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 10706 Mad
Judgement Date : 21 June, 2022
C.R.P(PD).No.1888 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
C.R.P.(PD).No.1888 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.9636 of 2022
1.Sumithra
2.Minor Eshin ... Petitioners
..Vs..
1.S.Malathi @ Usha
2.S.Suresh ... Respondents
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.61 2016 pending on the file of the VI
Additional Family Court, Chennai as the first respondent/plaintiff has got no
right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Family Court under Section 7 of the
Family Court Act in the interest of justice.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ganesan
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred to strike off the
suit in O.S.No.61 of 2016 pending on the file of the VI Additional Family
Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(PD).No.1888 of 2022
2.The petitioners are the defendants 2 and 3 in the suit filed by the
first respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No.61 of 2016. The first respondent
/plaintiff claims herself as the wife of the second respondent/first
defendant and she has filed a suit for the relief of permanent injunction in
the Family Court, Chennai.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per
Section 7(1)(c) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, a civil suit can be filed
only in respect of the properties owned by the spouses and not against 3rd
parties like the petitioner herein.
4.On a perusal of the plaint averments, it is seen that the first
respondent/plaintiff has alleged that she has supplied the financial
resources for purchase of the suit property with a belief that the property
will be registered in the name of her husband/2nd respondent/first
defendant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(PD).No.1888 of 2022
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
those allegations are against the provision of Benami Transactions
(Prohibition) Act, 1988, and the suit is not maintainable. He also
attracted the attention of this Court to the criminal Court's judgment
made in C.C.No.1553 of 2018, dated 08.03.2022, which is a private
complaint filed by the first respondent/husband.
6.All these matters are to be taken as defence of the petitioner in
the suit pending before the Family Court, Chennai. So far as the suit is
concerned, it has been taken on file based on the allegation that the
source for purchase of the property is by way of selling the jewels of the
first respondent. The merits of the case cannot be looked into at this
stage. Had the first respondent filed a suit against this civil revision
petitioner alone without impleading her husband as the first defendant,
the suit could have been clearly barred under Section 7(1)(c) of the
Family Courts Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(PD).No.1888 of 2022
7.Under such circumstances, I find no ground for interference and
the petitioners are at liberty to take up their defence before the Family
Court.
8.Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
21.06.2022
vkr
Index:Yes No Speaking Order:Yes/No
To
1.The VI Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai.
2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P(PD).No.1888 of 2022
R.N.MANJULA,J.
Vkr
C.R.P.(PD).No.1888 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.9636 of 2022
21.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!