Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, P. G. Ajithkumar, JJ
ARCHANA PIUS
– Appellant
Versus
SHINE – Respondent
OP (FC) 444 2022
Injunction - Family Law - Article 227, Section 7(1) Family Courts Act - The court reaffirmed its authority to grant injunctions in matrimonial disputes and underscored the need for judicious exercise of superordinate powers over subordinate courts.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought an anti-suit injunction against the respondent to prevent ongoing proceedings in Canada related to their marriage amid ongoing litigation in both countries.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that while it has supervisory authority, it must refrain from interfering with the Family Court's handling of the anti-suit injunction application, motivating an expedited resolution instead.
Issues: Whether the Family Court had jurisdiction to grant an anti-suit injunction and whether the High Court could intervene while such an application was pending.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court acknowledged its jurisdiction under Article 227 but emphasized its limited application and the necessity of allowing lower courts to exercise their powers without undue interference.
Final Decision: Petition disposed with directions for timely resolution by the Family Court.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN &
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1944 OP (FC) NO.444 OF 2022 FROM I.A.NO.2 OF 2022 IN O.P (OTHERS) NO.373 OF 2022 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
ARCHANA PIUS AGED 49 YEARS D/O.PIUS JOSEPH PUTHENPURACKAL, MANGAD P.O, KANDACHIRA, MANGAD - 680584 (NOW RESIDING AT 20 HOMEVIEW ROAD,BRAMPTON,ONTARIO,CANADA)
BY ADVS.
JOHNSON GOMEZ PARSHATHY S.R.
S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA)
SANJAY JOHNSON JOHN GOMEZ MOHAMED SHEHARAN SREEDEVI S.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT SHINE AGED 49 YEARS S/O.V.GOPALAN NAIR, NIRMALYAM, PUTHEN MADOM, THEVALLY CHERRY, KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, THEVALLY P.O - 691009 (NOW RESIDING AT 206 GRULKE STREET KITCHENER, ONTARIO, CANADA)
BY ADVS.
K.P.SURESH KUMAR R.ANIL R S.DILEEP(K/48/1987)
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
Ajithkumar, J This Original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner in O.P (Others) No.373 of 2022 on the file of the Family Court, Kollam. She seeks a direction to the Family Court, Kollam to consider Ext.P2, an application filed by her seeking a temporary prohibitory injunction. The petitioner also seeks to issue an order of injunction restraining the respondent from continuing with any proceedings before the Courts in Canada pertaining to the disputes in connection with marriage between the petitioner and the respondent.
2. On 08.08.2022, notice was directed to be served on the respondents. An interim order of stay was granted for a period of one month. On 31.08.2022, the said order of stay was extended until further orders.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
4. Marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 11.02.1999. They have two children. The petitioner has been working as a nurse in Canada. The respondent also is now in Canada. Following marital discord, there arose several litigations between them in India and Canada. Petitioner therefore filed O.P(Others) No.373 of 2022 before the Family Court, Kollam seeking an anti-suit injunction restraining the respondent from filing or continuing any proceedings against the petitioner in the Courts in Canada in relation to the marriage between them or their properties. A copy of the said original petition is Ext.P1. The petitioner also filed an interlocutory application, Ext.P2 in that O.P seeking a temporary anti-suit injunction in the same terms.
5. Ext.P2 application was filed before the Family Court, Kollam on 29.07.2022. The grievance of the petitioner is that said petition is yet to be considered by the Family Court and in the meantime, the respondent has been pursuing the litigations he has initiated before the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario, Canada. The petitioner would contend that unless an injunction as prayed in Ext.P2 application is granted, the petitioner will be put to irreparable injury and loss. Therefore she seeks a direction for speedy disposal of Ext.P2 application.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that this original petition as well as O.P(Others) No.343 of 2022 filed before the Family Court, Kollam are not maintainable. The learned counsel also would submit that an anti-suit injunction is governed by the same principle applicable to an injunction that could be ordered under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 and the petitioner is disentitled to get an anti-suit injunction so as to restrain the respondent from initiating or prosecuting litigations.
7. In Dinesh Singh Thakur v. Sonal Thakur [AIR
2018 SC 2094] the Apex court held that the Courts in India have power to issue anti-suit injunction against a party over whom it has personal jurisdiction. It is however observed that the Courts shall
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
