Family Courts lack jurisdiction over property disputes unrelated to marriage post-divorce, emphasizing that maintenance issues must be resolved before eviction petitions are considered.

JUDGMENT

S. Talapatra, J. - Heard Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and also heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. By means of this appeal, filed under Section 19(1) of the FAMILY COURTS ACT , 1984, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 03.07.2018 whereby the suit instituted by him under Section 26 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 read with Section 3 (b) and (c) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and under Section 3 9 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT , 1963 has been dismissed on returning an observation that in the fact and circumstances of this case, at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled to evict the respondent from the suit building/land until and unless the matter of entitlement of maintenance by the respondent is decided between the parties in a suit based on full and complete pleadings relating to the entitlement of maintenance to the respondent. Thereafter it has been also observed that the petitioner is not entitled to get mandatory injunction directing the respondent to leave and vacate the residence in favour of the petitioner as per schedule of the petition and to hand over the said two sons to the petitioner.

3. It may be noted that the appellant and the respondent were the husband and wife till the decree in Title Suit (Divorce) 70 of 2009 was passed on the ground of adultery by dissolving the marriage that subsisted between the parties. The judgment and decree was passed on 27.08.2011. An appeal being appeal No. MAT 08 of 2011 in the High Court of Tripura was preferred from the said judgment and decree. The said appeal was also dismissed affirming the judgment passed by the Family Court in Title Suit (Divorce) 70 of 2009. Thus, the said judgment and decree allowing divorce reached finality without further challenge. It appears from the petition (containing the pleadings filed under Section 26 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , read with Section 3 (b) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and under Section 3 9 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT , 1963) that at the time of filing the said petition i.e. on 20.05.2016 both the children who are in the custody of the respondent and the respondent were occupying a room in the house of the appellant herein. To evict the respondent therefrom and to get custody of the children that petition has been filed urging the following reliefs:

(i) a declaration of petitioner's right to get the above noted two sons Shri Senhasish Sinha & Shri Debayan Sinha in to petitioner's guardianship and custody and with him;

(ii) Mandatory injunction directing this respondent to leave and vacate this involved residence in favour of this petitioner and to hand over the said two sons to this petitioner.

4. Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned senior counsel has at the outset of his submissions has categorically stated that both the sons are born in the wedlock of the appellant and the respondent. Bt efflux of time, both the children have become major, meaning both of them have attained the age of 18 years. As such, the issue of restoring custody has become irrelevant and such relief has also turned out to be infructuous.

5. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has as well acceded to that submission. The other issue that has been fiercely contested by the parties is whether the respondent can continue the occupation in the house of the appellant.

6. The observation of the Judge, Family Court has already been noted by us. We are of the view that such observation was wholly unwarranted inasmuch as the Family Court is not supposed to adjudicate a dispute totally relating to immovable property and not att