MINIMOL Vs. ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When a suit for recovery of gold ornaments and money entrusted to the defendants as parental share at the time of marriage is decreed by the Munsiffs Court before establishment of the Family Court Act, whether appeal will lie to this Court as Mat. Appeal as provided under S. 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) if the Family Court was established before the appeal period was over, is the question considered in this order. As far as facts of this case are concerned, the appellant in this case filed a suit before the Munsiffs Court for recovery of gold ornaments and money entrusted to defendants as parental share at the time of marriage. The suit was decreed in part only. The judgment was pronounced on 25.6.1998. The certified copy was ready on 3.6.1999. After passing of the decree and before filing of the appeal, the Family Court was established at Kottayam. Therefore, contending that appeal will lie under S. 19 of the Act, appeal was filed before this Court. Registry raised objection stating that since the suit was disposed of on 25.6.1998 before establishment of the Family Court at Kottayam, appeal suit has to be filed before the appropriate court and not in High Court under S. 19 of the Family Court Act.

(2.) On establishment of the Family Court all proceedings covered under S.7 of the Act has to be transferred to the Family Court. S. 8(c)(ii) of the Act provides that every suit which would have been required to be instituted or taken before or by such Family Court if, before the date on which such suit or proceeding was instituted or taken, this Act had come into force and such Family Court had been established, shall be transferred to such Family Court as the date on which it is established. But in this case, the suit was already disposed of before the establishment of the Family Court at Kottayam. However, certified copy was issued only after establishment of the Family Court. S. 19 of the Act provides for appeal. S. 19 (1) reads as follows:

(3.) The contention of the appellant is that since the appeal was filed after the establishment of the Family Court at Kottayam, appeal would lie to the High Court under S.19 of the Act. In support of the above proposition, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Devaki v. Chandrika ( 1997 (2) KLT 746 ). The Division Bench in the above case held that when an ex parte decree was passed with respect to a matter to be decided by a Family Court, by a civil court prior to the establishment of the Family Court and if subsequently the Family Court is established, petition to set aside the ex parte decree will lie only before the Family Court. The appellant also relied on the decision of this Court in Kunju Beevi v. Syndicate Bank ( 1999 (2) KLT 245 ) wherein on identical provisions in Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 this Court held that if a suit filed by the bank for recovery of the amounts exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs is decreed by the court before the introduction of the Act, the petition to set aside ex parte decree has to be filed before the Tribunal established under the above Act. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Glenny v. The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. ( 2003 (2) KLT 973 (FB)). The Full Bench was considering the question whether the Tribunal constituted under that Act has got jurisdiction to set aside an ex parte order which was passed by a civil court before the Tribunal was established. The Full Bench held that eventhough general law is that court which passed the ex parte order alone can set aside the same in view of S.17(1) and 18 and since the civil court has no jurisdiction after establishment of the Tribunal, a petition to set aside an ex parte order passed by a civil court can be considered by the Tribunal after the establishment of the Tribunal under the Act. During the course of discussion the Full Bench held as follows: