Seyyed Siddique S. v. Deepthi S.S.

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA MONDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1946 ``` ``` OP (FC) NO.365 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.04.2024 IN O.P.NO.638 OF 2023 OF THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD ``` ## **`PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PETITIONER:`** ``` SEYYED SIDDIQUE.S, AGED 29 YEARS SEYYED SIDDIQUE.S S/O. SHAMSUDHEEN RESIDING AT AL- NOOR COTTAGE, KUDAPPANAMOODU (P.O), AMBOORI VILLAGE, KATTAKKADA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT FROM PRAKKATHERI PUTHEN VEEDU, IDICHAKKAPLAMOOD, PARASSALA VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695505 ``` ``` BY ADVS. GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL R.B.BALACHANDRAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:`** ``` DEEPTHI.S.S, D/O. M. SUKU, RESIDING AT VAZHAYANIKONATHU MELE PUTHEN VEEDU, KACHANI, KARAKULAM (P.O), KARAKULAM VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695564 ``` ``` BY ADVS. AJIT G ANJARLEKAR G.P.SHINOD(K/000626/1995) GOVIND PADMANAABHAN(K/925/2010) ATUL MATHEWS(K/1675/2018) GAYATHRI S.B.(K/2005/2020) ``` ``` THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.07.2024, ALONG WITH OP(FC) NO.366/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` O.P(FC) Nos.365 & 366 2024 2 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN ``` ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA MONDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF JULY 2024 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1946 O.P.(FC) NO.366 OF 2024 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.04.2024 IN O.P.NO.848 OF 2023 OF THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD ``` ## **`PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:`** ``` SEYYED SIDDIQUE.S, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. SHAMSUDHEEN, RESIDING AT AI-NOOR COTTAGE, KUDAPPANAMOODU (P.O), AMBOORI VILLAGE, KATTAKKADA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT FROM PRAKKATHERI PUTHEN VEEDU IDICHAKKAPLAMOOD, PARASSALA VILLAGE NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695505 ``` ``` BY ADVS. GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL R.B.BALACHANDRAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PETITIONER:`** ``` DEEPTHI.S.S, D/O. M. SUKU RESIDING AT VAZHAYANIKONATHU MELE PUTHEN VEEDU, KACHANI, KARAKULAM (P.O), KARAKULAM VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695564 ``` O.P(FC) Nos.365 & 366 2024 3 ``` BY ADVS. AJIT G ANJARLEKAR G.P.SHINOD(K/000626/1995) GOVIND PADMANAABHAN(K/925/2010) GAYATHRI S.B.(K/2005/2020) ATUL MATHEWS(K/1675/2018) ``` ``` THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.07.2024, ALONG WITH OP (FC)NO.365/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` O.P(FC) Nos.365 & 366 2024 4 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Devan Ramachandran, J.** Both these original petitions are filed by the same petitioner - Sri.Seyyed Siddique S., and hence we dispose of the same jointly through this judgment. 2. The petitioner explains that his marriage with his wife, Smt.Deepthi S - the respondent in these petitions, has hit stormy waters; and that, he thereupon filed O.P.No.638 of 2023 before the learned Family Court, Nedumangad, seeking a decree of divorce, along with a plea of return of certain amounts. He says that, in the said Original Petition, a dispute regarding a vehicle was also impelled and that he sought for an order of permanent prohibitory injunction, to restrain Smt.Deepthi from forcibly dispossessing it from him. He says that, however, in the meanwhile, Smt.Deepthi filed O.P.No.848 of 2023 before the same Family Court, seeking a decree for ₹25 Lakhs and for a mandatory injunction to return the afore vehicle to her, after having it O.P(FC) Nos.365 & 366 2024 5 examined through an expert. 3. The petitioner says that, while the Original Petitions were thus pending, Smt.Deepthi moved an application - numbered as I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.P.No848 of 2023, seeking an interim mandatory injunction for return of the vehicle; and that he filed I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.P.No.638 of 2023, seeking that Smt.Deepthi be injuncted from dispossessing him from the said vehicle using force. He says that both these applications were considered by learned Trial Court, which issued the orders impugned; thus allowing I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.P.No.848 of 2023, directing the petitioner to handover the vehicle to Smt.Deepthi; and also allowing I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.P.No.638 of 2023 filed by him, but only in part, restraining Smt.Deepthi from transferring or encumbering the vehicle in question, till the disposal of the Original Petition. 4. Sri.Gopakumar R.Thaliyal - learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that both the impugned orders are O.P(FC) Nos.365 & 366 2024 6 illegal and unlawful because, even though the registration of the vehicle is in the name of the respondent, the entire sale consideration for the same was paid by him and his mother; and that he is even now paying the Equated Monthly Instalments [EMI] on it, against the loan availed for the said purpose. He argued that, therefore, by the order in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in O.P.No.848 of 2023, the learned Family Court has, in fact, allowed the main prayer in the said Original Petition, since the respondent, as per prayer No.2 therein, has sought for a decree of mandatory injunction directing his client to surrender the vehicle and handover the same to her, after examining the same by an expert. He concluded, arguing that, for the same reason, the order impugned in O.P(FC)No.365 of 2024 is also in error, because it has only injuncted Smt.Deepthi from transferring or encumbering the vehicle, till final disposal of the Original Petition. 5. However, Sri.Ajit G.Anjarlekar – learned Counsel for the respondent, affirmed vehemently that his client is the O.P(FC) Nos.365 & 366 2024 7 registered owner of the vehicle, in whose name the insurance is also taken; and hence that its use by the petitioner exposes her to a continuous risk. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in _**Naveen Kumar v. Vijay Kumar and Others [2018 KHC 6083]**_ , to contend that, as far as the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is concerned, the owner of the vehicle is always the person in whose name it stands registered; and argued that, when his client is admittedly the registered owner of the vehicle in question, obviously, the use of the same by the petitioner in any manner is untenable and contrary to law. He then added that the vehicle was purchased by his client expending its sale consideration by herself; but that when disputes arose between the parties, the petitioner forcibly took its possession and threw her out of the matrimonial home. He thus prayed that these Original Petitions be dismissed. 6. When we evaluate the afore rival submissions, it is O.P(FC) Nos.365 & 366 2024 8 rendered perspicuous that the present dispute between the parties revolves around the vehicle in question. On one hand, the petitioner asserts that the said vehicle was financed by him and that the loan against it is continued to be serviced by him or his mother, but admitting that it is registered in the name of Smt.Deepthi; while the latter, as we have already seen above, also asserts that she is the one who financed the purchase, which is manifest from the factum of the vehicle having been registered in her name. 7. Be that as it may, it must be borne in mind that the dialectical positions adopted by the parties with respect to the payment of sale consideration and purchase of the vehicle can be resolved only through trial; but since it is affirmed by both sides without reservation, that it remains in the name of Smt.Deepthi, there is sure weight in her apprehension that, should it be involved in an accident or such deleterious events, she alone would be held responsible and liable to answer all consequences. O.P(FC) Nos.365 & 366 2024 9 8. There, thus presents a situation, where the use of the vehicle by Sri.Seyyed Siddique poses real threat for Smt.Deepthi; while, the latter being allowed to use it also could cause prejudice to the former. 9. That apart, when Smt.Deepthi has made a substantive prayer in O.P.No.848 of 2023 filed by her, seeking a decree of mandatory injunction against Sri.Seyyed Siddique to surrender the vehicle before the Court and handover the same to her, after examination by an expert, the impugned order now issued grants such relief as an interim one, even before trial, and without examination of the vehicle by an expert, as sought for. 10. We, therefore, put it to the learned Counsel for both parties as to how a balance between the rival interests can be obtained, to which, they were _ad idem_ that the vehicle will require to be maintained in the present condition, without any deterioration, at least until the trial is over; but that neither of the sides can be allowed to use it. O.P(FC) Nos.365 & 366 2024 10 The learned Counsel were also virtually in unison that, if this Court ensures the afore, the vehicle can be retained with Sri.Seyyed Siddique until further orders are issued by the learned Family Court; provided he does not use it, but maintains it without causing it any deterioration. 11. We are, without doubt, that the afore suggestions are the most apposite, especially because both sides agree to the same. Resultantly; - (a) These Original Petitions are allowed and the - impugned orders are set aside. (b) The learned Family Court, Kottarakkara, will take up the interim applications and appoint an expert for an examination of the vehicle and obtain a report on its present condition without any avoidable delay. (c) The petitioner – Sri.Seyyed Siddique, will be allowed to continue to retain the vehicle, however, without using it, but with the responsibility of maintaining it without O.P(FC) Nos.365 & 366 2024 11 any deterioration; and we record that this has been expressly agreed to by him and by his learned Counsel. (d) The afore arrangement will continue until such time as the learned Family Court takes a final decision in these Original Petitions; and thereafter, the custody of the vehicle will depend upon such judgment/decree. Sd/- **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE** Sd/- **M.B.SNEHALATHA JUDGE** sp/22/07/2024 O.P(FC) Nos.365 & 366 2024 12 ## **`APPENDIX OF O.P.(FC) NO.365/2024`** ## **`PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:`** ## **`EXHIBIT P1`** ``` TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 05.06.2023 IN O.P. NO. 638/2023 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD ``` ## **`EXHIBIT P2`** ``` TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION DATED 05.06.2023 IN I.A NO. 1/2023 IN O.P. NO. 638/2023 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD ``` ## **`EXHIBIT P3`** ``` TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 18.07.2023 IN I.A NO. 1/2023 IN O.P. NO. 638/2023 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD ``` ## **`EXHIBIT P4`** ``` TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.04.2024 IN I.A NO. 1/2023 IN O.P. NO. 638/2023 PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD, ``` O.P(FC) Nos.365 & 366 2024 13 ## **`APPENDIX OF O.P.(FC) NO.366/2024`** ``` '- PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: ``` - **`EXHIBIT P1`** ``` TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 18.07.2023 IN O.P.NO.848/2023 ON THE FILESOFTHEFAMILYCOURT, NEDUMANGAD. ``` - **`EXHIBIT P 2 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION DATED 18.07.2023 IN I.A NO. 1/2023 IN O.P. NO. 848/2023 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD.`** ``` EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 01.09.2023 IN I.A NO. 1/2023 IN O.P. NO. 848/2023 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD ``` - **`EXHIBIT P4`** ``` TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.04.2024 IN I.A NO.1/2023 IN O.P. NO. 848/2023 PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD. ``` - **`' -`** - **`RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:`** - **`EXHIBIT R1(M)`** ``` A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21/08/2023 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WP (CRL) NO: 813 OF 2023 . ``` - **`EXHIBIT R1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE PRO FORMA INVOICE DATED 22/04/2023`** - **`EXHIBIT R1(B)`** - **`A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE RESPONDENT ISSUED BY UNION BANK OF INDIA, MG ROAD BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`** - **`EXHIBIT R1(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT FROM 01/04/2022 TO 02/06/2023 ISSUED BY SLEEBA AND SONS AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LIMITED.`** O.P(FC) Nos.365 & 366 2024 14 ``` EXHIBIT R1(D) ``` - **`A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE PASS BOOK ISSUED BY MUNDELA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK TO THE RESPONDENT.`** ``` EXHIBIT R1(E) ``` - **`A TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE RESPONDENT ISSUED BY UNION BANK OF INDIA, MG ROAD BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.`** - **`EXHIBIT R1(F) A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION PERTAINING TO KL 21 Y 0666-MAHINDRA THAR.`** - **`EXHIBIT R1(G) A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF INSPECTION TO BE ISSUED BY APPROVED DEALER, ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE RESPONDENT .`** - **`EXHIBIT R1(H) A TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE RESPONDENT`** - **`EXHIBIT R1(I) A TRUE COPY OF THE INSURANCE ISSUED BY RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED.`** - **`EXHIBIT R1(J) A TRUE COPY OF OP NO: 1727/2017 PREFERRED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM`** - **`EXHIBIT R1(K) A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO: 599/2023 REGISTERED BY KATTAKADA POLICE.`** - **`EXHIBIT R1(L) A TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R IN CRIME NO: 912/2023 REGISTERED BY ARUVIKKARA POLICE .`** ``` EXHIBIT R1(O)COLOUR PHOTOGRAPH OF THE CAR BEING USED FOR OFF-ROADING. ``` 15 O.P(FC) Nos.365 & 366 2024 ``` EXHIBIT R1(N) ``` ``` A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21/11/2016 OF THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD IN OP NO: 393/2016 IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT R1(N) WITH TYPED COPY ```