Applications in pending Original Petitions must comply with statutory provisions; the failure to do so affects the Court's discretion to entertain them.

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner challenges the order of the learned Family Court, Ernakulam, in IA No.9 of 2025 in OP No.2521 of 2023.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the aforesaid Original Petition was filed by the respondent, seeking, inter alia, that he be declared the sole owner of certain properties that remain in the joint names of the parties; and the petitioner says that she did not file her objections to it only because there was an “anti-injunction suit” already filed in a competent court in Australia, in which, an order had been issued against the parties not to initiate litigation in India. She says that, however, the said order has now been modified by the Australian Court, thus permitting both parties to apply to the Indian courts for declaration of their respective assets, and that the respondent – husband has already done so, which has been allowed. She says that, nevertheless, when she made the application in terms of the above said liberty reserved to her by the Australian Court, it was rejected by the learned Family Court through the Ext.P17 order; and therefore, that she has been constrained to approach this court.

3. Smt. R. Leela – learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the impugned order is in error because, the learned Family Court has already allowed the application of the husband for declaration of her client’s assets, but has dismissed her petition solely because she has not filed objections to the main Original Petition as of now. She explained that she did not do so, singularly on account of the above-said reason; and hence that the learned Family Court ought to have allowed the application.

4. We are afraid that we cannot find favor with the submissions of Smt. R. Leela, for the reason that any application filed in a pending Original Petition can be considered and allowed by a Court only in the manner authorised in law. There are specific provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) that permit and sanction actions as necessary; but what the petitioner has done is to file an application under Section 151 of it, to seek that the respondent herein be directed to disclose all his assets and liabilities. For this, she depends upon an order from an Australian court.

5. We do not propose to speak on the merits of the order of the Australian Court because, it is not relevant to us for these proceedings.

6. Suffice to say, the learned Family Court could have considered an application only if it was made in the manner as statutorily permissible and not otherwise.

7. Interestingly, the original petition was filed by the husband; and the petitioner has filed an application in it seeking declaration of his assets. As said above, the only reason stated by her is that she has been permitted to do so by a court in Australia.

8. It is conceded before us that the petitioner has not yet filed her written statement/objections in the Original Petition before the learned Family Court. She has, nevertheless, filed the application for declaration of the assets of the original petitioner; and this has not been accepted by the learned Family Court, in our view correctly.

9. We say so because, it is only after the petitioner discloses her defense in the matter, and if it is only found to be relevant to the cause projected, that any court can decide on an application, whatever be its nature or the justification offered for its filing.

10. This is not to mean that the petitioner would be incapacitated in future from making an application as she has now done, or seeking any other remedy under the provisions of the applicable law against the respondent herein; but she will have to explain the relevance and cause for it