H P LAKSHMIDEVARAJE Vs. G P ASHARANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 25-6-2001 rejecting I. A. II in O. S. No. 511/98 passed by the trial Court, the first defendant has presented this revision petition. The said application was filed under Order VII Rule 11 C. P. C. seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose cause of action and the one pleaded is vague and ambiguous and the suit is not maintainable.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Explanation- (c) of S. 7 (1) of the Family Courts Act in support of his contention that the order under revision is bad in law.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order under revision. The trial Court observed that though the matrimonial dispute is between the husband and wife, the suit is filed by the wife for recovery of movable properties said to have been taken away by the first defendant. Clause (c) of Explanation to S. 7 (1) of the Family Courts Act refers to a suit or proceeding between the Parties to a marriage. In the instant case, the plaintiff in paragraph 5 of the plaint has alleged that her father-in-law had joined hands with the first defendant and therefore he has been arrayed as 2nd defendant in the suit. But in paragraph 7 of the plaint it is clearly pleaded that the properties have been taken away by the first defendant. Thus, the main dispute is between the parties to the marriage. In view of S. 8 of the Act, the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred and the Family Court has to try the suit. In this view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, is well founded. The trial Court has not considered this important aspect. Consequently, the order under revision is liable to be set aside.