Court retains jurisdiction over maintainability issues to be decided at trial, regardless of party array amendments.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioners challenge Ext.P2 order of the learned Family Court, Vadakara, through which, IA No.3/2025 filed by the respondent seeking amendments of the afore Original Petition filed by her has been allowed; thus permitting her to incorporate the explanation (d) to Section 7 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 , (‘Act’ for short), as an additional provision therein.

2. Smt.Reeha Khader – learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently argued that IA No.3/2025 could never have been allowed by the learned Family Court, when the husband of the respondent had been deleted from the party array; and that her clients had filed IA No.2/2024, challenging the maintainability of the said petition before it, in such scenario, but that it has been dismissed without properly appreciating the law involved.

3. We have examined the order impugned; and notice that, as said above, the only amendment allowed by the learned Family Court is that the respondent has been permitted to incorporate explanation (d) toSection 7(1) of the ‘Act’ as an additional provision in the pleadings.

4. The specific assertion of the petitioners is that the Original Petition is not maintainable before the learned Family Court with or without the afore provision being incorporated since the husband has been deleted from the array of parties; and hence that it ought to have been dismissed, without any amendment being allowed.

5. We are afraid that the afore contention has been impelled prematurely because, the question whether the learned Family Court obtains jurisdiction in the matter, when the husband has been deleted from the party array – as asserted - depends upon various factors, including whether the dispute between the parties relates to marriage and family affairs, or matters connected therein. The learned Family Court is enjoined to decide all matters - including the question of maintainability, if raised, as per law at the apposite time, which can never be denuded or precluded by us.

6. In such perspective, we see no reason why the petitioners should have approached this Court, particularly when the learned Family Court will allow the parties to impel every contention, including on the maintainability of the Original Petition, to be decided after trial.

Resultantly, we dismiss this Original Petition; however, clarifying that, if the petitioners are to raise a question of maintainability as a matter in trial, the same will be considered by the learned Family Court appropriately, after affording necessary opportunity to both sides.

Sd/-