Karnataka High Court
Venkatappa And Anr. vs The Chairman, Family Courts And Ors. on 24 January, 1990
Equivalent citations: II(1990)DMC144, 1990(1)KARLJ225
JUDGMENT M.P. Chandrakantaraj Urs, J.
1. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioners have sought to implead themselves in the proceedings before the Family Court at Bangalore.
2. One Nagarathna brought a suit in the family Court against her husband inter alia contending that the husband is not on cordial terms with her and she is living separately and she has been in possession of Schedule 'A' and 'B' properties, living in one and carrying on her trade and business in another. The husband of the plaintiff-wife is trying to dispossess her from the building. Therefore, she approached the Family Court in that behalf and a temporary injunction has been granted restraining the husband from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit Schedule properties.
3. The petitioners who wanted to be impleaded as parties filed I.A. IV. The parties do not question the right, title and interest of either the wife or the husband and therefore the family Court has rejected I.A. IV, on a number of grounds including the ground that no vital evidence has been produced by any party regarding title to the suit property.
4. The family Court has exclusive jurisdiction in trying disputes between the husband and wife, as provided under Section 7 of the Family Court's Act, (see Explanation 7 of Section 7), the property dispute between the husband and wife shall be the subject matter of jurisdiction of the family Court as if a separate suit is not necessary.
5. Therefore, till the dispute is solved finally by the family Court the third parties have nothing to do with the lis between husband and wife with reference to suit Schedule properties. They cannot intervene.
6. If the petitioners have individual title they must establish the same in a separate suit by making both husband and wife defendants in such a proceeding.
7. Therefore, the conclusion reached by the family Court is correct. This petition is misconceived hence, it is rejected.