MINI Vs. SIVARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The jurisdiction of the Family Court to deal with a suit for injunction filed by the father-in-law against the daughter-in-law arises for consideration. The Family Court held that it has no jurisdiction since the said suit is not based on 'circumstances arising out of a marital relationship'. The daughter-in-law has preferred this appeal challenging the order returning the plaint for presentation to the proper court.

(2.) This case has an interesting past. A suit was originally filed before the Munsiff Court, Vaikom as O.S. No.157 of 2013. The relief claimed in the suit was for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to vacate the plaint schedule building and also for a prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants or anybody acting under them from interfering with the title and possession of the plaintiffs, after such eviction. Plaintiffs in that suit are the respondents herein while the defendants in the suit are the appellants before us. The appellants before us are the daughter-in-law and grandchildren of the respondents while the respondents herein are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the 1st appellant. For the purpose of easier comprehension, the parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed in O.S. No.157 of 2013 of the Munsiff Court, Vaikom.

(3.) It was alleged in the plaint that the 1 st plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule building and that defendants are the wife and children of their deceased son. According to plaintiffs, after marriage, the 1st defendant and her husband resided in a property, which was purchased by the 1 st plaintiff in the name of his son and that when the son expressed his inclination to stay with his parents, the plaintiffs permitted the son along with his family to come and reside with them. While so, it is alleged that, the 1st defendant and the son of the plaintiffs slowly moved into a quarrelsome relationship, which ultimately ended up in the suicide of plaintiffs' son and thereafter, due to harassment by the 1st defendant and her family members, plaintiffs were forced to move out of the schedule building. According to the plaintiffs, even though defendants have an alternate building which remains in the name of the plaintiffs' son, defendants are residing in the building of the 1st plaintiff by force. It is in such circumstances, the suit was instituted before the Munsiff Court, Vaikom. The cause of action for the suit is stated to be the assault and forcible eviction of plaintiffs on 6.12.2011 by the 1 st defendant and her brother.