The registered owner of a vehicle is deemed its legal owner, and interim arrangements must balance the interests of both parties in divorce proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Devan Ramachandran, J.

Both these original petitions are filed by the same petitioner - Sri.Seyyed Siddique S., and hence we dispose of the same jointly through this judgment.

2. The petitioner explains that his marriage with his wife, Smt.Deepthi S - the respondent in these petitions, has hit stormy waters; and that, he thereupon filed O.P.No.638 of 2023 before the learned Family Court, Nedumangad, seeking a decree of divorce, along with a plea of return of certain amounts. He says that, in the said Original Petition, a dispute regarding a vehicle was also impelled and that he sought for an order of permanent prohibitory injunction, to restrain Smt.Deepthi from forcibly dispossessing it from him. He says that, however, in the meanwhile, Smt.Deepthi filed O.P.No.848 of 2023 before the same Family Court, seeking a decree for ₹25 Lakhs and for a mandatory injunction to return the afore vehicle to her, after having it examined through an expert.

3. The petitioner says that, while the Original Petitions were thus pending, Smt.Deepthi moved an application - numbered as I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.P.No848 of 2023, seeking an interim mandatory injunction for return of the vehicle; and that he filed I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.P.No.638 of 2023, seeking that Smt.Deepthi be injuncted from dispossessing him from the said vehicle using force. He says that both these applications were considered by learned Trial Court, which issued the orders impugned; thus allowing I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.P.No.848 of 2023, directing the petitioner to handover the vehicle to Smt.Deepthi; and also allowing I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.P.No.638 of 2023 filed by him, but only in part, restraining Smt.Deepthi from transferring or encumbering the vehicle in question, till the disposal of the Original Petition.

4. Sri.Gopakumar R.Thaliyal - learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that both the impugned orders are illegal and unlawful because, even though the registration of the vehicle is in the name of the respondent, the entire sale consideration for the same was paid by him and his mother; and that he is even now paying the Equated Monthly Instalments [EMI] on it, against the loan availed for the said purpose. He argued that, therefore, by the order in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.P.No.848 of 2023, the learned Family Court has, in fact, allowed the main prayer in the said Original Petition, since the respondent, as per prayer No.2 therein, has sought for a decree of mandatory injunction directing his client to surrender the vehicle and handover the same to her, after examining the same by an expert. He concluded, arguing that, for the same reason, the order impugned in O.P(FC)No.365 of 2024 is also in error, because it has only injuncted Smt.Deepthi from transferring or encumbering the vehicle, till final disposal of the Original Petition.

5. However, Sri.Ajit G.Anjarlekar – learned Counsel for the respondent, affirmed vehemently that his client is the registered owner of the vehicle, in whose name the insurance is also taken; and hence that its use by the petitioner exposes her to a continuous risk. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inNaveen Kumar v. Vijay Kumar and Others [ 2018 KHC 6083 ] to contend that, as far as the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is concerned, the owner of the vehicle is always the person in whose name it stands registered; and argued that, when his client is admittedly the registered owner of the vehicle in question, obviously, the use of the same by the petitioner in any manner is untenable and contrary to law. He then added that the vehicle was purchased by his client expending its sale consideration by herself; but that when disputes arose betw