Back
Karnataka High Court
Venkatappa - Appellant
Versus
Chairman, Family Courts, Bangalora - Respondent
Decided On : 01-24-90
W.P. : 638 of 1990
Family Court Jurisdiction - Impleadment of Third Parties - The family court has exclusive jurisdiction in trying disputes between husband and wife, including property disputes, and third parties cannot intervene until the dispute is resolved. Individual title must be established in a separate suit by making both husband and wife defendants.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to implead themselves in the proceedings before the family Court at Bangalore, as a suit was brought by a wife against her husband regarding possession of certain properties.
Finding of the Court:
The family court rejected the petitioners' request to be impleaded as parties, citing lack of vital evidence regarding title to the suit property and the exclusive jurisdiction of the family court in trying disputes between husband and wife.
Issues: The main issue was the impleadment of third parties in the family court proceedings and the jurisdiction of the family court in property disputes between husband and wife.
Ratio Decidendi: The family court has exclusive jurisdiction in trying disputes between husband and wife, including property disputes, and third parties cannot intervene until the dispute is resolved. Individual title must be established in a separate suit by making both husband and wife defendants.
Final Decision: The petition was rejected as the family court's conclusion was deemed correct and the petition was considered misconceived.
( 1 ) IN this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioners have sought to implead themselves in the proceedings before the family Court at Bangalore,
( 2 ) ONE Nayarathna brought a suitin the family Court against her husband inter-alia contending that the husband is not on cerdial terms with her and she is living separately and she has been in possession of Schedule 'a' and 'b' propertites. living in one and carrying on her trade and business in another. The husbend of the plaintiff wife is trying to dispossess her from the build ing. Therefore she approached the Family Court in that behalf and a temporary injunction has been granted restraining the husband from inter-R. 29 fering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule properties.
( 3 ) THE petitioners who wanted tobe impleaded as parties filed I, A. IV. The parties do not question the right, title and interest of either the wife oi the husband and therefore the family court has rejected I. A. iv, on a number of grounds including the ground thai no vita! evidence has been produced by any party regarding title to the suit property,
( 4 ) THE family Court has exclusivejurisdiction in trying dispute between the husband and wife, as provided under Sec. 7 of the Family Court's Act, (see Explanation 7 of Section 7), the property disputebetween the husband and wife shall be the subject matter of jurisdiction of the family Court as if v. separate suit is not necessary.
( 5 ) THEREFORE, til! the disputesoived finally hy the family Court the third parties have nothing to do with the Ms between husband and wife with reference to suit Schedule properties. They cannot intervene.
( 6 ) IF the petitioners have individual title they must establish the samein a separate suit by making both husband and wife defendants in such a proceeding.
( 7 ) THEREFORE, the conclusion resched bythe family Court is correct, this petition is misconceived hence, it is rejected. Writ Petition Rejected.
--- *** ---
.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
