BOSSUET S DIAS Vs. DAVIDINHA DIAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law : - A)Whether the Courts below were right in granting permanent injunction against the Defendant - Appellant when there was no suit for separation of properties filed under Article 1219 of the Portuguese Civil Code; B)Assuming that there was a suit for separation of properties, whether the relief to be granted would be injunction or a decree for separation ; C)Whether the Courts below failed to consider that the Defendant - Appellant married under communion of properties was entitled to administer the estate".

(2.) THE respondent had filed a suit to injunct the appellant from lifting money in deposit with Bank of Baroda, Orlim Branch. It was further submitted by the respondent that she had no objection that the said money be reinvested for a further period of five years i. e. when the money is required for children's education. She prayed for necessary instructions to the Bank of Baroda, Orlim in the aforesaid terms. THE case of the respondent, in brief, is that the appellant was formerly working at Ciba Geigy, Oorlim and had left the job since 1986 and ever since had taken heavily to drinking and started illtreating her, as a result of which she went to her mother's house. According to her, out of the money which she had brought at the time of marriage and out of savings on earnings, some monies were deposited in the Bank in fixed deposits in the names of the minor children. THE appellant is withdrawing the monies from the said Bank and squandering the same on drinking; the said money was meant for education of the children and that being a moiety holder, she is entitled to have say in the matter. On these facts the suit in question was filed. THE appellant denied the contentions put forward by the respondent. THE trial Judge partly decreed the suit and declared that the respondent is entitled to half share of the total amount standing in the name of the appellant jointly with the sons and the other half shall be divided in equal shares among the appellant and his two sons and that each party is allowed to withdraw their share according to the aforesaid proportions. Fixed deposit receipts of Rs. 2000/- each standing in the names of both the sons were allotted to the sons and the same are ordered to be reinvested for five years till the sons become majors.

(3.) THEREFORE, the main question which is to be decided in this appeal is whether a suit for injunction simpliciter would lie without respondent seeking any relief of separation of properties.