1. The important question is as to whether the Hindu wife, who is not living with her husband, can maintain a suit before the Family Court constituted under the Family Courts Act, 1984 for a decree of perpetual injunction to restrain the husband from alienating his own property.

2. The petitioner is the sole defendant in O.S.No.124 of 2012 on the file of Principal Family Court at Chennai. The respondent is the plaintiff and she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. The petitioner has filed a petition for divorce in O.P.No.900 of 2012 on the file of III Additional Family Court, Chennai. The said case is pending trial.

3. The petitioner has entered into a joint venture agreement with the owner of the suit properties herein. As per the agreement, the petitioner has to construct buildings and in terms of the agreement, he has got right to sell away some of the flats, on completion of the project. While so, the respondent has filed the present suit seeking the following relief:

1) Granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his agents, partners or anybody acting through him in any manner from alienating the schedule mentioned properties, without protecting the plaintiff and her son S.Pranavakanth's peaceful, healthy, safety future life and education.

2) For the costs of the suit and pass such further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice"

Seeking to quash the said suit, contending that the same is a clear abuse of process of Court, the petitioner has come up with this petition.

4. I have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and also perused the records carefully.

5. In this Civil Revision Petition, this Court ordered notice to the respondent on 23.01.2013. Private notice was also ordered by this Court and the same was served on 04.02.2013. One Mr. R.Varadharajan, learned counsel entered appearance by filing vakalat on behalf of the respondent. Thereafter, the case was listed for many hearings. When the matter came up for hearing on 15.03.2013, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner was ready but there was no representation for the respondent. However, with a view to grant further opportunity to the respondent, the matter was ordered to be listed on 28.03.2013. Again, when the matter came up for hearing on 28.03.2013, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner argued the matter and there was no representation for the respondent. The respondent was also not present. Therefore, the respondent was set exparte. The matter was adjourned for orders. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the respondent was not present and there was no representation also on his behalf and no petition has been filed seeking to set aside the exparte order. Therefore, I proceed to dispose of the Civil Revision Petition on considering the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and on considering the materials available before the Court.

6. It is the primary contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the Family Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit of this nature. Taking me through Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the learned senior counsel would contend that the issues in this suit and the relief sought for do not fall in any one of the clauses enumerated in Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act. To be precise, the learned senior counsel would submit that when the respondent/plaintiff does not claim any right over the suit property, the suit for injunction in respect of the said property cannot be entertained by the Family Court. For this proposition, the learned senior counsel has relied on a Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Smt.Kanchan Upadhyay Vs. State of U.P. and others (AIR 2006 Allahabad 148). That was a case where the wife filed a suit for injunction before the Family Court at Allahabad to restrain the husband from selling the house belo