A third party cannot pursue a family court petition after the original party has withdrawn, as their rights are independent and must be pursued in a competent Civil Court.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P12 order of the learned Family Court, Ottappalam, qua the directions in I.A.No.1/2025 in O.P.No.184/2018.

2. Compendiously, the Original Petition was initially filed by the petitioner (wife) against the 2^nd respondent (husband), seeking cancellation of two documents; in which, the 1^st respondent impleaded himself asserting that he is the successor in interest of the petitioner in the property covered by it. It transpires that the petitioner, thereupon, withdrew the Original Petition and the 1^st respondent filed I.A.No.1/2025 to transpose himself in her place, so as to prosecute the Original Petition. This has been allowed by the learned Family Court and the petitioner challenges the same as being illegal and unlawful.

3. Sri.Mohana Kannan – learned counsel for the 1^st respondent, submitted that the learned Family Court has committed no wrong because, the right of his client to sue the petitioner, as also the 2^nd respondent, survives because he is a person who had purchased the property in question from the assignee of the petitioner. He argued that, therefore, the learned Family Court cannot be held to have committed any error in having allowed the application.

4. In refutation, however, Sri.Jacob Sebastian – learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that, when his client has withdrawn the Original Petition against the 2^nd respondent for whatever be the reason that she may have been guided by, it was impermissible for the learned Family Court to have allowed the prosecution of the same at the instance of a third party. He contended that there is no matrimonial connection between the third party and the husband or wife; and hence, that the transposition ought to never have been allowed.

5. We find substantial force in the afore submissions of Sri.Jacob Sebastian because, the Original Petition came to be filed before the learned Family Court only because the dispute was between the husband and wife. As said above, the 1^st respondent (third party) impleaded himself, claiming to be the successor in interest of the petitioner through successive sale transactions; and when she withdrew the Original Petition – whatever be the reason – he sought to transpose himself as the petitioner, so as to continue to prosecute the Original Petition.

6. We are afraid that the grant of permission by the learned Family Court for such a course is wholly unacceptable and impermissible because, the right of the 1^st respondent to proceed either against the petitioner or the 2^nd respondent, is an independent one, which he can always invoke and pursue before the competent Civil Court. He cannot be allowed to prosecute an Original Petition originally filed by the petitioner, in spite of the fact that she has withdrawn the same; and when she has done so, nothing survives under the ambit of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, before the learned Family Court.

In the afore circumstances, this Original Petition is allowed;

and Ext.P12, to the extent to which it is impugned, is set aside.

We, however, clarify that our observations herein will not preclude the rights of the 1^st respondent – either against the petitioner or the 2^nd respondent, as he may be advised – before any other competent Forum; for which, all contentions of the rival parties are left open/undecided.

Sd/-