IMPORTANT POINTS :
" Found that there is disobedience of any interim order of injunction, the Court "may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in civil prison for a term not exceeding six months, unless in the meantime, the Court directs his release.
" The suit was dismissed after trial is not a ground to hold that the party who has violated the interim order should not be proceeded with under O.XXXIX R.2A.

SHAFFIQUE, J.

1. MA No.901/09 has been filed by the respondent in OP No.1591/2006 of the Family Court, Ernakulam. The OP was filed by the respondent/husband seeking for a declaration that he is the rightful owner in respect of the petition-schedule property and he is entitled to hold and possess the same. The Court below decreed the suit declaring that the petitioner/husband is the absolute owner in respect of property covered by document No.4794/2000 of the Sub Registry Office, Kochi and he is entitled to retain possession of the same.

2. The short facts of the case as reflected in the pleadings are as under and the parties are described as shown in the Original Petition unless otherwise stated.

3. The petitioner and the respondent got married on 17/9/1989 as per Christian religious rites and ceremonies. Two children were born in the wedlock. The contention urged by the petitioner was that he was employed abroad since 1984 until 2003. After the marriage, he executed a general power-of-attorney in favour of her and she was managing all his assets and properties. Even the NRE account maintained by him was operated by the respondent. More than Rs.40 lakhs was transacted by the respondent from his NRE account during the period 1996-2004. On 22/9/2000, an extent of 10 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.1151/7 of Palluruthy village was purchased as per document No.4794/2000 of SRO, Kochi. The entire consideration to purchase the property was expended by the petitioner at the relevant time. The property was however purchased in the name of the respondent. Respondent was treated as the custodian of the property. He further contended that the respondent with the help of her brother had misappropriated his money and property. On account of matrimonial issues, they are living separately and therefore he sought for a declaration that he is the rightful owner of the property.

4. Respondent denied the allegations. She denied the fact that she had transacted more than Rs.40 lakhs during 1996-2004. She also denied the fact that the property was purchased as per document No.4794/2000 with the funds of the petitioner. She stated that she was residing separately on account of the ill-treatment by the petitioner.

5. The above case was tried along with OP No.541/2006 and OP No.1138/2006. OP No.541/2006 was filed by the respondent and her minor children for return of money and gold ornaments and also for a direction to restrain the petitioner from disposing of the petition-schedule property (another item) till payment of amounts due to her. OP No.1138/2006 was filed by the petitioner himself seeking custody of the minor children.

6. Common evidence was taken in the case. On the respondent's side PW1 to PW3 were examined and petitioner examined himself as RW1. Exts.A1 to A4 were produced and marked by the respondent and Exts.B1 to B22 documents were relied upon by the petitioner.

7. The Family Court found that there is evidence to show that money was withdrawn from the NRE account of the petitioner at the time of purchasing the property covered by document no.4794/2000. That apart, respondent took up a contention that the property was purchased by utilizing her own funds, but there is no evidence to substantiate the same. Therefore, it was declared that the title over the property rests with the petitioner.

8. Mat.Appeal No.1294/15 has been filed challenging an order passed by the Family Court refusing to take prosecution proceedings against the petitioner in an application filed under O.XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Petitioners in that case are the wife and children. They filed IA Nos.4217/2007 and 4218/2007 in OP No.541/2016 inter alia contending that when a temporary injunction was in force as per order in IA No.1645/2006 in the said OP restraining the respondent/husband from alienating, transferring or otherwise encumbering the property, in violation of the said order, he had transferred the property in favour of Sri.K.J.Sebasti