IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN &

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA TUESDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025 / 22ND MAGHA, 1946 OP (FC) NO. 22 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.09.2024 IN I.A.NO.4/2024 IN OP NO.1187 OF 2023 OF FAMILY COURT, KUNNAMKULAM PETITIONER/PETITIONER: FATHIMA, AGED 56 YEARS W/O. VAPPINU, PARUVANATHU HOUSE, ANDATHODU P.O., KADIKKADDESOM, PUNNAYURKKULAM VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680506 BY ADVS.

K.N.ABHILASH SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT RISHI VARMA T.R.

RITHIK S.ANAND SREELAKSHMI MENON P.

K.M.TINTU ANU PAUL SREEJITH A.

V.SREEJITH RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: VAPPINU, AGED 63 YEARS S/O. AMMUNNI, PARUVANATHU HOUSE, ANDATHODU P.O., NOW RESIDING AT C/O. MUSTHAFA, PULLIKAL HOUSE, MULLIYAMKURISHI, MELMURIDESOM, PATTIKKAD P.O., PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679325 BY ADVS.

JAGADEESH K V.RENJU(K/2317/1999)

NIKHEL K GOPINATH(K/000352/2016)

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON

10.02.2025, THE COURT ON 11.2.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & M.B.SNEHALATHA, JJ.

-------------------------------------------

O.P (FC) No.22 OF 2025 -------------------------------------------

Dated, this the 11^th February, 2025

JUDGMENT

M.B.Snehalatha, J.

The petitioner/the estranged wife of the respondent has filed this Original Petition challenging Ext.P6 order of the learned Family Court, Kunnamkulam, by which her petition filed under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure to incorporate reliefs under Sections 18 and 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'DV Act, 2005') was dismissed by the Family Court.

2. The Original Petition was filed by the petitioner before the Family Court under Section 7(1) Explanation (c) and (d) of the Family Courts Act seeking permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondent from trespassing into the petition schedule property and from forcibly evicting her from the said property.

3. During the pendency of the Original Petition, petitioner filed I.A.No.4/2024 seeking amendment of the Original Petition to incorporate reliefs under Sections 18 and 19 of the DV Act, 2005 also.

4. Respondent resisted the said petition for amendment and sought dismissal of the said petition contending that there was no domestic violence against the petitioner; that till the filing of the petition seeking amendment, she had not filed any petition seeking reliefs under the DV Act; that in O.P.No.1716/2015 filed by her she had claimed ownership over the property which was found against her and therefore her petition to amend the Original Petition seeking reliefs under the DV Act has been filed only as a counterblast to O.P.No.262/2023 filed by the respondent against her seeking eviction from the petition schedule property.

5. By order dated 10.9.2024, the learned Family Court dismissed I.A.No.4/2024 which is impugned herein.

6. Heard both sides.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that Section 26 of the DV Act entitles the petitioner to seek reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 of the DV Act and therefore the learned Family Court is in error in dismissing the petition seeking amendment filed by the petitioner to incorporate the reliefs under Sections 18 and 19 of DV Act, 2005.

8. The learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that an Original Petition filed under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act cannot be permitted to amend to incorporate reliefs under the DV Act and if the amendments sought by the petitioner is allowed, it would change the very nature and character of the Original Petition as rightly held by the learned Family Court and therefore the amendment sought for is not to be allowed and the order impugned be left uninterdict.

9. Petitioner/the estranged wife of the respondent filed the Original Petition before the Family Court under Section 7(1)(c) and (d) of the Family Courts Act seeking a decree of per