The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Family Court does not have inherent jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act to entertain a suit by the wife against the husband for perpetual injunction restraining the husband from alienating the residential property.

ORDER :

S.S.SUNDAR, J.

Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to strike off the plaint in OS.No.296/2015 pending on the file of the learned III Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai, and consequently, to dismiss the said suit.

(1) The above Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to strike off the plaint in OS.No.296/2015 pending on the file of the learned III Additional Judge, Family Court, Chenai, and consequently to dismiss the said suit.

(2) The petitioner in the above Civil Revision Petition is the husband of the respondent and defendant in the suit in OS.No.296/2015. The wife of the petitioner, namely, the respondent herein, filed the suit in OS.No.296/2015 before the learned III Additional Judge, Family Court, Chennai for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein from alienating the suit schedule property to any third party in whatsoever manner. The suit property is described as a flat measuring 275 sq.ft., in the second floor of a building in South Boag Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-17.

(3) The case of the respondent in the plaint is that the petitioner married her on 12.06.2014. It is her further case that after marriage, the couple started living in the matrimonial house of the petitioner. The respondent/wife had made several allegations in the plaint against the petitioner herein and it is stated that with fraudulent motive and to deceive the respondent, the respondent was forced to go to her parental home. It was her further allegation that the petitioner had deserted her and she filed a suit for permanent injunction with the specific allegation that she has got right to reside in the husband's place namely the suit property. It is also alleged that the revision petitioner is trying to alienate the suit property.

(4) When the matter was listed for admission, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon the earlier judgment of this Court in CRP.[PD].No.142/2013 in the case of B.Gajendran V. Adhilakshmi dated 03.04.2013, by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.NAGAMUTHU [as he then was], submitted that the suit for a perpetual injunction filed by a wife against husband not to alienate the property is not maintainable in the Family Court as it did not fall under any one of the clauses of Section 7[1] of the Family Courts Act. In that case, a similar petition to strike off the plaint was allowed. The learned Single Judge in the said case, struck off the plaint in the original suit filed by the wife before the Family Court.

(5) After paying attention to the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the order in CRP.[PD]No.142/2013 cited before the learned Judge as a precedent, Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.R.SHIVAKUMAR [as he then was], disagreeing with the view expressed by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.NAGAMUTHU [as he then was] in CRP.[PD].No.142/2013, was of the view that the matter should be referred to a Larger Bench. Hence, the learned Judge directed the Registry to list the above Civil Revision Petition before the Division Bench.

(6) When this matter was listed before us on 06.12.2022, this Court appointed Mr.R.Bharath Kumar, Advocate as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.

(7) While referring to the Larger Bench, the learned Single Judge has observed that he differs from the view taken by the learned Single Judge in CRP.[PD].No.142/2013 and unable to accept the same as a precedent for the following reasons:-

''6....

[1]The power of superintendence of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be sparingly used and with circumspection, that too when the same is invoked for striking off the plaint, which shall have the effect of depriving the opposite party of a statutory appeal if the plaint is rejected under any of the clauses of Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

2. The contention that the Family Court does not have jurisdiction under Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act wi