MAXWELL.M CHENNUR Vs. HAPPY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution filed by the petitioner who is the husband of the respondent, is Ext.P7 common order passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam in I.A.No.5464 of 2009 and I.A.No.5257 of 2010 in O.P.No.1933 of 2009. In the above original petition the petitioner is seeking an order of injunction against the respondent restraining her from alienating, encumbering and otherwise disposing of a car on the premise that though the ownership as per R.C.Book stands in the name of the respondent the car belongs to him as the entire funds for purchasing the car was supplied by him only.

(2.) I .A.No.5257 of 2010 was filed by the respondent alleging that after obtaining an interim order of injunction against her in I.A.5464 of 2009 the car was stealthily taken away from her residential premises by the petitioner and it is now kept idle in the backyard of the petitioner's residential premises. Under the impugned order the learned Family Court found that the probabilities are that the car was under the user of the respondent and her children who are living separately from the petitioner. The version of the respondent that she was dispossessed of the car by the petitioner on the strength of an interim order of injunction issued by the Court on 31.12.2009 in I.A.No.5464 OF 2009 was highly probable, particularly as the respondent had allegedly filed a complaint before the police regarding the loss of the vehicle and the police investigating into the above complaint found the vehicle lying idly, hidden in the compound of the paternal house of the petitioner in North Paravur. The Court noticed that allowing the vehicle to remain idle will result in deterioration of the value of the vehicle, hence taking into account the circumstance that respondent is the owner of the vehicle as per the statutory records, has passed the impugned order.

(3.) WE have heard the submissions of Sri.Nagaraj Narayanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and those of the respondent who appeared before us and made submissions in person. We have carefully read through the impugned order. Even though Sri.Nagaraj Narayanan suggested at the out set that the present original petition and various other litigations pending between the parties in various courts can be settled in mediation through one of the accredited mediators of the High Court Mediation Centre, the respondent told us that as very serious allegations of adultery are raised against her by her husband, she would like to have the divorce case decided by the Court judicially on merits after taking evidence. Moreover, we notice that the petitioner is not presently in India. We, therefore, proceed to decide this original petition on merits.