C. MADHAVAN, MYLADUM PARAYIL VEETTIL AND KUTTYAMMA W/O. MADHAVAN Vs. CHELLAMMA, VADKE KALAPARAMBIL VEEDU AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants were the petitioners before the Family Court. They filed the O.P for a declaration that they are entitled to recover the share amount and value of gold ornaments given to the respondents at the time of the marriage of their daughter, deceased Sreedevi. The petitioners/appellants are the father and mother of deceased Sreedevi. During the pendency of the appeal, the 1st appellant died and the 9th respondent has been brought on record as the only other legal heir of the deceased 1st appellant, the 2nd appellant being the other legal heir. The 9th respondent has not entered appearance. His cause is effectively represented by the 2nd appellant, his mother. Deceased Sreedevi was married to one Ramanan, son of the 1st respondent and brother of respondents 2 to 5. The prayer in the O.P was inter alia for release of amounts paid to the said Ramanan, his parents and siblings at the time of marriage.

(2.) THE O.P was filed before the Family Court. The Family Court, by the impugned order, took the view that the dispute does not fall within the sweep of explanation (a) to (g) of Section 7 of the Family Court Act. Accordingly, the petition was held to be not maintainable and was returned for presentation before proper court.

(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant in detail. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in any view of the matter, substantial portion of the claim falls squarely under Section 7(d) on the basis of the averments in the petition and return of the same by the Family Court is not justified. At this stage, the court is not to concern itself with the acceptability of the averments and allegations. The Family court must have considered whether on the averments raised in the petition, the petition is substantially maintainable before the court.