Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JJ.
Akza Rajan, D/o. Rajan M.S. and Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
Rajan M.S., S/o. Late Sukumaran – Respondent
O.P.(FC) No. 704 Of 2022, O.P.(FC) No. 721 Of 2022
Decided On : 12-04-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 39, 100 - Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Section 3(b), 20 - Property - Order of temporary injunction - Petitioners seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining respondent from alienating or committing any act of waste in petition schedule property – Their intention is not merely to secure their right to realise money becomes due under decree that may be passed in O.P. but to cause embarrassment and inconvenience to their father - Para 25.
Finding of the Court: When petitioners already have filed a petition for attachment of property of respondent, there is no justification for petitioner to claim equitable relief of injunction prohibiting respondent from alienating property or committing acts of waste - Applying for injunction and simultaneously an application for attachment of property shows intention of petitioners - Their intention is not merely to secure their right to realise money becomes due under decree that may be passed in O.P. but to cause embarrassment and inconvenience to their father - As rightly pointed out by Family Court what is entitled by petitioners is amount to meet reasonable expenses in connection with marriages - Family Court computed expenses on a prima facie estimation as Rs.7,50,000/ - Court is of view that a detailed enquiry into that aspect is unwarranted at this stage - From materials on record and in light of fact that petitioners do not require any gold ornaments at time of marriage, amount to meet reasonable expenses in connection with marriages of petitioners would not exceed Rs.15 lakhs - Hence, Court is of view that an attachment to secure an amount of Rs.15 lakhs would certainly protect interest of petitioners.
Result: O.P disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
[P.G. Ajithkumar, J.]
1. The petitioners in O.P.No.87 of 2022 before the Family Court, Palakkad have filed these Original Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. In O.P.(FC) No.704 of 2022 the petitioners challenge the order of the Family Court dated 23.11.2022 in I.A.No.11 of 2022 in O.P.No.87 of 2022. That interlocutory application was filed by the petitioners seeking an order of attachment before judgment. The Family Court allowed that application in part and ordered attachment of the property to secure an amount of Rs.7,50,000/-.
3. In O.P.(FC) No.721 of 2022 the petitioners challenge the common order of the Family Court dated 23.11.2022 in I.A.Nos.2 and 9 of 2022 in O.P.No.87 of 2022. The petitioners filed I.A.No.2 of 2022 seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondent from alienating or committing any act of waste in the petition schedule property. The Family Court on 2.3.2022 passed an interim injunction. The respondent filed I.A.No.9 of 2022 seeking to vacate the order of injunction. The Family Court as per the impugned common order dismissed I.A.No.2 of 2022 and allowed I.A.No.9 of 2022.
4. On 22.12.2022, notice on admission was directed to be served on the respondent in O.P.(FC) No.704 of 2022. An interim order to retain the petition schedule property under the attachment was granted for one month. The interim order has been extended from time to time.
5. On 04.01.2023, notice on admission was directed to be served on O.P.(FC) No.721 of 2022 and directed to list this Original Petition along with O.P.(FC) No.704 of 2022.
6. The respondent entered appearance and filed counter affidavits in both cases.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
8. The petitioners are the daughters of the respondent. Petitioners No.1 and 2 are now aged 26 years and 21 years respectively. From the rival pleadings, it appears that there was total estrangement in the marital relationship between the mother of the petitioners and the respondent, and there were litigations between them. As a consequence, the petitioners have been residing with their mother separated from the respondent.
9. The petitioners have filed O.P.No.87 of 2022 before the Family Court, Palakkad, seeking realisation of Rs.45,92,600/- towards their marriage expenses. They also seek a decree creating charge for the said amount on the petition schedule property. The petitioners filed I.A.No.2 of 2022 to get an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondent from alienating or committing any act of waste in the petition schedule property. The petitioners contended that the respondent purchased the petition schedule property utilising the fund raised by selling the gold ornaments of their mother and other financial help obtained from their mother and her family members. A residential house was constructed on that property. Going by the pleadings of the petitioners, the respondent has been residing in that house. The petitioners would contend that if the property is alienated or some acts of mischief are committed thereon, their right to realise the amount claimed in the original petition would be hampered. They, therefore, sought an order of temporary injunction.
10. In I.A.No.11 of 2022, the petitioners contended that the respondent has been trying to alienate the petition schedule property along with the building thereon, and in such an event the petitioners would not be able to realise the amount due under the decree that may be passed in O.P.No.87 of 2022. Accordingly, they sought an order of attachment.
11. The respondent resisted both those applications by contending that the property and the building thereon absolutely belong to him and he was not liable to pay any amount to the petitioners. He claimed that all the educational expenses of the petitioners were met by him and his wife had been maintaining a hostile attitude towards him. He has pointed
SupremeToday
Section 39 of Transfer of Property Act reads transfer where third person is entitled to maintenance.
(1) Charge on immovable property – Court can only recognize and declare a charge which pre-exists – Court cannot create a charge a new.(2) Right of unmarried daughter to claim maintenance can be enfo....
A father has a statutory obligation under Hindu law to maintain his unmarried daughter and cover reasonable marriage expenses, enforceable even after the daughter reaches majority.
(1) Father cannot abdicate his responsibility of looking after his unmarried daughters.(2) An unmarried daughter, even if employed and earning, cannot be assumed to have sufficient resources to meet ....
The main legal point established is the court's authority to assess and modify maintenance orders, adjust rental income, and impose conditions on property sale and attachment under the Domestic Viole....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that a widowed daughter-in-law is entitled to maintenance from her father-in-law under Section 19 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 195....
Widowed daughter-in-law can claim maintenance from her in-laws.
In joint ownership cases, absent evidence of individual contributions, parties are presumed to have equal shares in the property.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, and the exemption of proceedings before the Family Court from ad-valorem fees under....
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
