JACOB.M.I Vs. TEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by the petitioner who is the husband of first respondent is Ext.P7 order passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam. Ext.P7 is passed by the Family Court in I.A.2586 of 2011 filed by the petitioner in O.P.1421 of 2010. A copy of that original petition is produced as Ext.P1. Ext.P1 is filed by the first respondent arraying her father-in-law, the petitioner herein as the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent her husband as first respondent, and 3rd respondent, a company as the 3rd respondent.

(2.) THE petitioner filed I.A.2586 of 2011 urging that the Family Court, Ernakulam lacks inherent jurisdiction as there is no matrimonial relationship between him and the petitioner in the O.P. It was also urged that at any rate the claim is barred by limitation. From Ext.P7 it appears that when the I.A. was heard it was only the jurisdictional issue which was seriously argued. Learned Judge of the Family Court has passed Ext.P7 noticing that first respondent in the O.P.(husband of the petitioner in the O.P. and the son of the present petitioner) is yet to enter appearance and holding that the question of jurisdiction can be considered along with the other issues in the case.

(3.) MR .Bechu Kurian Thomas would support Ext.P7 and submit that visitorial jurisdiction under Section 227 is not to be invoked for correcting each and every wrong order passed by a subordinate judicial authority. Having considered the submissions addressed at the bar and having reminded ourselves of the well delineated contours of this Court's jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Constitution, we are of the view that Ext.P7 is not an order which is liable to be corrected under the visitorial jurisdiction. We have seen that the materials including Ext.P1 and according to us the question of limitation and even the contention that the Family Court, Ernakulam lacks inherent jurisdiction to the extent the claim is made against the petitioner will require evidence for a proper decision. We decline jurisdiction and hence this O.P. is dismissed. We direct the Family Court, Ernakulam to try and dispose of O.P.1421 of 2010 in accordance with law giving top priority to the same. It is needles to mention that the issue regarding jurisdiction and limitation, if it is properly raised in the pleadings, should also be considered by the Court along with other issues in the case.