SINDHU SIDHARTHAN Vs. K K SIDHARTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Construed in the light of the broad legislative intent does the dispute in the instant case fall within the sweep of Explanation (c) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act This is the question that falls for consideration in this appeal.

(2.) To answer this question, the nature of the dispute must be first ascertained. Parties continue to be spouses. A petition for divorce is pending. The husband is a very wealthy and successful businessman. He did not have formal education beyond the 4th standard. He was working abroad at the time of his marriage. The wife is about 17 years younger to him. She holds a Degree in Law in addition to her M.Com. Degree. She is said to be the sister-in-law of the legal advisor of the husband. The marriage took place in 1964. Two children were born in the wedlock. The spouses lived in harmony for some time, it appears. The wife was allegedly helping the husband in the management of his properties. He had business interests abroad. According to the husband, he trusted and placed faith on his wife absolutely. As a wife, she was acting and was bound to act in trust in respect of his properties. To further facilitate her actions in management of his property and to enable her to manage his affairs as his wife/trustee while he was abroad he had executed a registered general Power-of-Attorney in her favour on 24-6-2006. She was acting in trust as a wife and a Power-of-Attorney holder for some time. As days passed, the husband allegedly perceived a change in the attitude of his wife. He doubted her bona fides. He rushed to India and executed a registered document to revoke the instrument of Power-of-Attorney executed in favour of his wife. That deed of revocation was registered on 7-2-2007. The act of revocation was communicated to her immediately. She allegedly refused to accept the communication. She went on a mischievous endeavour of executing documents in favour of herself and others of her choice on the strength of his Power-of-Attorney which had already been cancelled. He thus initiated the present suit. There are other litigations also between the parties.

(3.) This litigation i.e. O.P. No. 1413/07 is pending before the Family Court. We note that the parties have already come to this Court on a number of occasions during the pendency of this O.P. Time bound directions for disposal of O.P. No. 1413/07 has already been issued. O.P. No. 1413/07 must have been disposed of by 17-2-2010. It has not been disposed of yet. The respondent/wife has raised objection to the jurisdiction of the, Family Court under explanation (c) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act. That preliminary objection was rejected by the Court by the impugned order. Challenge is raised in this appeal against the said order rejecting the objection to jurisdiction raised by the appellant herein. The Family Court held that it has jurisdiction under explanation (c) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act to deal with the matter.