The jurisdiction of the Family Court is determined by the nature of the dispute, not the array of parties involved, allowing for the transfer of related civil suits.

JUDGMENT

P.V.BALAKRISHNAN, J

This intra court appeal is filed by the petitioner in Tr.P.C.No.594/2022 challenging the judgment passed therein, dismissing her petition.

2. The Transfer Petition was filed seeking transfer of O.S.No.608/2018 on the files of the Additional Munsiff Court- II, Nedumangad to the Family Court, Nedumangad.

3. The appellant is the legally wedded wife of the first respondent and the second respondent is the mother of the first respondent. The appellant and the first respondent got married on 11/5/2003 and two children were born in the wedlock. When the relationship between them got strained, the appellant filed O.P.No.842/2016 before the Family Court Nedumangad seeking recovery of gold ornaments, realization of money and maintenance. An order of attachment of the property was also passed by the Family Court, as per order in I.A.No.1567/2016. During the pendency of the Original petition, the matter was referred for mediation and the parties entered into an agreement whereby, the respondents agreed to sell the property and settle the claims raised in the original petition. Consequently, the attachment was also lifted. While so, the 2nd respondent filed O.S. No.608/2018, against the first respondent before the Additional Munsiff Court, Nedumangad seeking declaration of right over the property, mandatory injunction, etc. It is alleged that suit has been filed in collusion with the first respondent, with an intention to defeat the compromise entered into between the parties in O.P.No.842/2016. The subject matter and parties in both the proceedings are one and the same and in order to avoid conflicting decisions, transfer of O.S.No.608/2018 to the Family Court, Nedumangad is a necessity.

4. The respondents would contend that O.S. No.608/2018 is a suit filed by the second respondent against the first respondent and the same cannot be tried and disposed of by the Family Court, which is not a court competent to deal with the matter in issue. According to them, the proceedings in the afore suit will not come under any of the provisions of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act and the same is not a suit between parties to the marriage.

5. Heard both sides.

6. On an anxious consideration of the rival contentions and the materials on record, we find merit in the contention of the appellant. It is an admitted fact that O.P.No.842/2016 pending before the Family Court, Nedumangad has been filed by the appellant against the respondents seeking recovery of the gold ornaments, realization of money, maintenance, attachment of property, etc. It is not in dispute that the property, which is also the subject matter in O.S. No.608/2018, filed by the second respondent against the first respondent, was attached by the Family Court during the pendency of the original petition. The records reveal that while so, the parties in O.P.No.842/2016 entered into an compromise agreement whereby, it was agreed that the respondents will sell the property and settle the claim raised in the original petition. Consequently, the attachment over the property came to be lifted. The records also reveal that it is thereafter, the second respondent has filed O.S.No.608/2018 before the Munsiff Court, Nedumangad against the first respondent, who is none other than her son seeking the reliefs of declaration and mandatory injunction over the afore property. It is to be taken note that the appellant was also impleaded as additional defendant in the said suit during its pendency. Thus, it can be seen that both in O.P.No.842/2016 pending before the Family Court, Nedumangad and in O.S.No.608/2018 pending before the Additional Munsiff Court-II, Nedumangad, the property involved and the parties are one and the same and a decision made in any one of them will have a bearing on the other.

7. It is true that strictly speaking, going by the array of parties, it cannot be stated that O.S.No.608/2018 is between the parties to the marriage. But, it is to be seen that the dispu