T.B. JOSHI Vs. SINNI JOSHI AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are preferred by the appellant husband against the common judgment dated 14.12.2016 of the Family Court, Muvattupuzha dismissing O.P.Nos. 551 and 586 of 2014. The appellant-husband was the petitioner in both these original petitions which were tried together. The parties are being referred to in this judgment as in Mat.Appeal No. 290 of 2017 for the sake of convenience.

(2.) The original petitions were filed seeking permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondent wife from selling, alienating and encumbering or transferring possession of two separate items of property to any other person except her two children. The appellant had married the respondent on 25.12.1989 in accordance with Hindu customary rites and two children were born in the wed lock. The petition schedule properties had been purchased in the name of the respondent for the welfare of the minor children and the entire sale consideration was paid by the appellant. It is contended that recently the respondent had started living separately and the appellant came to know that she intended to sell the properties to third parties and hence the original petitions were filed.

(3.) Written objections were filed by the respondent admitting the marriage contending that one of the properties had been purchased by her father from his siblings in the name of the respondent herself and for her welfare. It was further alleged that approximately a year after the birth of the elder child, the appellant and respondent had established Siddarth Polymers using the respondent's ornaments and savings available with both the parties and the parties were managing the said establishment together till 2013. The property scheduled in O.P.No.586/2014 was purchased by the respondent utilising the profits she derived as proprietrix of Siddarth Polymers during the financial year 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. It was further alleged that both the children were major at the time of purchase of the property and that the contention that both the properties were purchased for their welfare was utterly false.