MANGA LAKSHMI Vs. K.BASANTH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the above Mat.Appeal, filed under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is against an order passed by the Family Court, Irinjalakuda in IA No.1467/2015 in OP No.634/2015. The appellant herein is the respondent before the court below, both in the I.A. as well as in the original petition. The respondent herein is the petitioner before the Family Court.

(2.) Original Petition before the Family Court was instituted seeking declaration that the appellant is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased brother of the respondent, and also seeking consequential permanent prohibitory injunction with respect to the immovable property scheduled in the original petition. IA No.1467/2015 was filed by the respondent herein seeking a temporary injunction restraining the appellant from tresspassing into the scheduled properties and from committing any waste or damage therein, till the disposal of the original petition. Initially the Family Court had granted an ad -interim order of injunction. After the appellant filed detailed counter affidavit, the matter was heard by the court below. The order impugned herein was passed on 14 -10 -2015, confirming the temporary injunction based on a finding that, the question as to whether the appellant is the legally wedded wife of the deceased brother of the respondent, is a matter which need to be decided after taking evidence, and will then, considering the balance of convenience the court below has got a duty to preserve the scheduled properties pending disposal of the original petition. Therefore it is found that it is necessary to restrain the appellant from tresspassing into the scheduled properties and from committing any waste or damages therein. It is aggrieved by the said order of temporary injunction passed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, the above appeal is filed.

(3.) The respondent herein entered appearance. A counter affidavit is filed, inter alia raising a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the appeal, contending that the impugned order being interlocutory in nature is not appealable under Section 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. In view of the above objection it is necessary for this court to decide the question of maintainability of the above Mat. Appeal.