M.Kuppuraj … vs Devi …
2023 Latest Caselaw 16107 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 16107 Mad
Judgement Date : 11 December, 2023

Madras High Court

M.Kuppuraj … vs Devi … on 11 December, 2023

Author: T.V.Thamilselvi

Bench: T.V.Thamilselvi

                                                                                CRP(PD).No.2174 of
                                                             2023

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                      DATED : 11.12.2023

                                                          CORAM :

                              THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

                                                C.R.P(PD).No.2174 of 2023
                                                and CMP.No.13225 of 2023


                    M.Kuppuraj                                                       ….Petitioner

                                                              -Vs-

                    Devi                                                        ….      Respondent

                    Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
                    India, praying to strike off the plaint in O.S.No.4 of 2023 on the file of
                    learned Family Judge , Dharmapuri.

                                     For Petitioner      : Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar

                                     For Respondent      : Mr.Arun Anbumani

                                                          ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking to strike off the

plaint in O.S.No.4 of 2023 on the file of learned Family Judge, Dharmapuri.

2. Before the trial Court, the respondent/wife filed a suit in O.S.No.4

of 2023 and she also filed an application in I.A.No.02 of 2023 prayed to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(PD).No.2174 of

pass an interim order thereby granting the ad interim anti suit injunction by

whichg restraining the petitioner/husband/defendant from pursuing or

continuing with the matrimonial proceedings initiated by him in the Superior

Court of Forsyth County, State of Georgia under the Civil Action Number

22CV-1967-3. The said application was allowed by the trial Court.

Challenging the same, the revision petitioner/husband has filed this Civil

Revision Petition before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/husband submitted

that the Family Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and also not

entitled to grant such ad interim anti suit injunction as claimed by the

respondent/wife. He further submitted that he relied on by Judgment in

Suraj Seth vs Ruchika Abbi 2014 SCC online Del 6999, Section 7 of the

Family Court Act which clearly shows that the relief claimed by the present

plaintiff and anti suit injuction claimed by her also parte of the section.

Section 7 of the Act is extracted hereunder:-

(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family

Court shall—

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(PD).No.2174 of

(a) have and exercise all the jurisdiction exercisable by any district court or any subordinate civil court under any law for the time being in force in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the Explanation; and

(b) be deemed, for the purposes of exercising such jurisdiction under such law, to be a district court or, as the case may be, such subordinate civil court for the area to which the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends.

Explanation.—The suits and proceedings referred to in this sub- section are suits and proceedings of the following nature, namely:—

(a) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage for a decree of nullity of marriage (declaring the marriage to be null and void or, as the case may be, annulling the marriage) or restitution of conjugal rights or judicial separation or dissolution of marriage;

(b) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the validity of a marriage or as to the matrimonial status of any person;

(c) a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them;

(d) a suit or proceeding for an order or injunction in circumstance arising out of a marital relationship;

(e) a suit or proceeding for a declaration as to the legitimacy of any person;

(f) a suit or proceeding for maintenance;

(g) a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(PD).No.2174 of

(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall also have and exercise—

(a) the jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of the first class under Chapter IX (relating to order for maintenance of wife, children and parents) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); and

(b) such other jurisdiction as may be conferred on it by any other enactment.

4. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the respondent/wife

submitted that the Family Court empowered to grant ad interim anti suit

injuction. He further submitted that he relied on by Judgment in

Madhavendra L.Bhatnagar vs Bhavna Lall 2021 (3) CTC 605, para 7 and 9

are extracted hereunder:-

''7. Be that as it may, during the pendency of the stated suit

for declaration and for direction to handover custody of the minor

child, an application had been moved by the appellant before the Trial

Court which came to be rejected on the ground, that the Superior

Court of Arizona was outside India and not subordinate to that court.

This view noted by the Trial Court is completely erroneous and ill-

advised. For, the relief claimed by the appellant was for grant of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP(PD).No.2174 of

interim anti-suit injunction against the respondent and not against the

Superior Court of Arizona, as such.