Kerala High Court
K.K.Sidharthan vs Sindhu on 19 February, 2010
Bench: K.M.Joseph, M.L.Joseph Francis
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2108 of 2010(R)
1. K.K.SIDHARTHAN, PROPRIETOR, HOTEL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SINDHU, D/O.PONNAPPAN, 4-H,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJIT
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :19/02/2010
O R D E R
K.M. JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ.,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P. (C) Nos. 1368 and 2108 of 2010
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 19th day of February 2010.
JUDGMENT
Joseph Francis J., W.P. (C) No. 1368 of 2010 is filed by the respondent wife in I.A. No. 2186 of 2009 in O.P. No. 1413 of 2007 on the file of Family Court, Thrissur, by which the respondent in that I.A. was required to produce 15 items of documents for the period from 7.2.07 to 10.9.09. W.P.(C) No. 2108 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner in that I.A. challenging the portion of the order in that I.A. by which the request to the respondent to produce documents evidencing running of the Hotel Sidhartha Regency for the period from 11.6.2005 was rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case mentioned in W.P.(C) No.2108 of 2010 are as follows: The petitioner is the owner of Hotel Sidhartha Regency. The petitioner executed a power of attorney on 11.6.2005 W.P. (C) Nos. 2108 & 1368/2010 :2: in favour of his wife/ respondent, for the purpose of managing the affairs of the hotel property during his absence.
3. When the petitioner came to know that the respondent along with her paramour was trying to effect transfers of the property belonging to him, by virtue of the power of attorney executed by him, the petitioner informed the respondent not to act on the basis of the power of attorney and cancelled the power of attorney on 7.2.2007. The said fact was communicated to the respondent on 7.2.2007 itself.
4. The respondent, thereafter effected a series of transactions, whereby the entire property of the petitioner including Hotel Sidhartha Regency was transferred in the name of the respondent and her paramour. The petitioner, therefore filed O.P. No. 1413 of 2007 and other cases seeking for cancellation of the documents, executed by the respondent.
5. This court, as per Ext.P4 judgment was pleased to appoint the respondent as receiver, considering her claim that she was running and is still running Hotel Sidhartha Regency. This Hon'ble court also allowed the petitioner to approach the Family Court to W.P. (C) Nos. 2108 & 1368/2010 :3: seek appropriate directions.
7. The petitioner is being flooded with notices alleging violation of statutory requirements with regard to the functioning of the hotel. The petitioner therefore filed Ext.P6 to P10 applications requiring the respondent to produce documents with regard to the functioning of the Hotel. The respondent refused to do so. The Family court, as per the impugned order has passed an order directing the respondent to furnish the accounts for the period from 7.2.2007 onwards only.
8. Aggrieved by the order to the extent it proceeded to allow the prayer made in I.A. No. 2186 of 2009 partly requiring the respondent to produce 15 items of document for the period from 7.2.07 to 10.9.07, the respondent filed W.P.(C) No.1368 of 2010. Against the refusal of the prayer to produce document from 11.6.2005, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.2108 of 2010. The order under the challenge is marked in W.P.(C) No.1368 of 2010 as Ext.P7.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent in both the W.Ps. Counsel for the respondent/wife contends that the W.P. (C) Nos. 2108 & 1368/2010 :4: order directs production of documents beyond the scope of the case.
10. O.P. No. 1413 of 2007 on th file of Family Court Thrissur is filed by the petitioner husband against the respondent wife for a declaration that the petitioner husband is the true owner of the petition schedule property and for cancellation of document No. 1027 of 2006 of SRO Thrissur. Hotel Sidhartha Regency is situated in the petition schedule property. The petitioner husband alleges that the petition schedule property including Hotel belongs to him as per document No.3713 of 1993 and document No.3966 of 1993 of SRO Thrissur. The petitioner husband executed a registered power of attorney No. 150 of 2006 of SRO Anthikkad in favour of respondent wife and that power of attorney subsequently cancelled by him on 7.2.2007 as per cancellation deed No.30 of 2007. Thereafter, the petition schedule property was transferred in the name of respondent wife as per document No.1027 of 2007 of SRO Thrissur on the strength of power of attorney executed in favour of the respondent wife. In O.P. No. 1413 of 2007 the petitioner husband challenges the validity of document No. 1027 of 2007.
11. Admittedly, this court as per order in W.P.(C) No.11227 W.P. (C) Nos. 2108 & 1368/2010 :5: of 2009 dated 8.4.2009 permitted the respondent wife to run the hotel business and accordingly the wife was appointed as receiver to run business of the Hotel Sidhartha Regency on furnishing security of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) and she was directed to submit periodical quarterly statement of accounts. The wife furnished security for Rs.10,00,000/- on 9.9.2009 as Fixed Deposit receipt as per order in I.A. No.4242 of 2009. The petitioner husband filed I.A. No. 2186 of 2009 before the Family Court Thrissur calling upon the respondent wife to produce 15 documents, which includes audit reports, other accounts, annual statements and other documents for the period from 11.6.2005 to 8.4.2009.
12. Admittedly, the petitioner husband executed power of attorney in favour of the respondent wife on 24.6.2006. Before that date, the petitioner husband was conducting hotel business directly. The respondent wife was appointed as receiver with effect from 10.9.2009 on furnishing security. Therefore, it is clear that wife has not acted as receiver from 24.6.2002 to 9.9.2009. The power of attorney was cancelled by the husband on 7.2.2007. As observed by the Family Court, the petitioner husband is entitled to challenge the W.P. (C) Nos. 2108 & 1368/2010 :6: conduct of his wife after 7.2.07 only. Therefore the Family court is justified in disallowing the prayer of the petitioner for production of documents prior to 7.2.2007 and also justified in directing the respondent wife to produce the document in respect of items nos. 1 to 15 in I.A. No. 2186 of 2009 for the period from 7.2.2007 to 10.9.2009. We do not think that a case for interference is made out under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution. Therefore we are of the view that both the Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed as they are without any merits.
Accordingly both the Writ Petitions are dismissed.
K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE.
dl/