BINOY RAMESH Vs. BEULA ANGEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges Ext.P10 order of the learned Family Court, Palakkad, dismissing his application, namely IA No.3/2024 in OP No.660/2024.

(2.) The aforementioned Original Petition, namely OP No.660/2024, was filed by the petitioner seeking an order against the respondent from prosecuting a petition for divorce filed by her before a Court in Singapore. Along with the Original Petition, he filed IA No.3/2024 seeking an interim injunction against the respondent; but this has now been rejected by the learned Family Court, through Ext.P10.

(3.) Sri.Jacob Sebastian - appearing for the petitioner, argued that the findings of the learned Family Court are in error, particularly when the respondent herself volunteered to submit to the jurisdiction of the Indian Court, though having filed an application for divorce before the Family Justice Court of the Republic of Singapore. In substantiation of this argument, Sri.Jacob Sebastian relied upon Ext.R1(i) produced by the respondent before us, namely a copy of the Transfer Petition bearing Tr.P.(C) No.418/2023, in which Ext.R1(e) judgment was delivered by a learned Judge of this Court. He contended that when the respondent averred in the Transfer Petition that she wanted the divorce petition filed by his client in the learned Family Court, Palakkad, to be transferred to the learned Family Court, Kozhikode, where she had instituted OP No.787/2023 against him and his mother for recovery of gold and money, it was impermissible for the learned Family Court to have issued the impugned order and to have denied the anti-suit injunction that his client had sought. He reiteratingly pointed out to us that the averments in the Transfer Petition are to the specific effect that the respondent intends to defend the divorce petition filed by his client before the learned Family Court in Kerala, for which, she has sought its transfer to the learned Family Court, Kozhikode; and hence that the refusal of injunction against her, to thus prevent her from proceeding further in the Family Court in Singapore, is illegal and unlawful. He thus prayed that Ext.P10 be set aside and that his client's application, seeking interim injunction against the respondent, be allowed.