SEEMA Vs. JAYAGOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 473 of 2008 filed before the Sub Court Ernakulam claiming certain reliefs, which, in our view, fall within those matters enumerated under Section 7 and the Explanation thereto, of the Family Courts Act, 1984, for short, the 'FC Act', At hearing, there is also no serious dispute to this situation.

(2.) The marriage between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant ended in a divorce. An apartment in a complex, of which, the 2nd defendant is a builder, stands in the name of the 1st defendant, the divorced wife. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that the said apartment was obtained by spending his funds and, therefore, he has title to that apartment. This squarely falls within the matters enumerated in Section 7 of the FC ACT, notwithstanding the fact that the marital tie between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant snapped even before the institution of the suit. We find that the plaintiff and the then employees of the 2nd defendant builder were examined as PWs.1 to 3 and the son of the couple was examined as DW1. Documentary evidence was also let in. The suit was decreed. Counter claim of the 1st defendant was dismissed. It is hence that the 1st defendant has appealed.

(3.) Before proceeding on to the merit of the rival contentions on the basis of pleading and evidence, we note that long before the institution of the suit before the Sub Court, the territory within which the apartment comes, was covered by the notification constituting the Family Court, Ernakulam. Obviously, therefore, the suit ought to have been laid only before the Family Court, Ernakulam, This is the net effect of the exclusion of jurisdiction resulting out of the operation of Section 8 of the FC, Act. This proposition is also not disputed.