Sindhu vs Subash Advocate - IBRAHIMKUTTY. M — 100076/2020
Case under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section S26O7R1,2,3,4,5,6,7. Disposed: Uncontested--PLAINT RETURNED on 25th March 2026.
OS - ORIGINAL SUIT
CNR: KLAL220001082020
Filing Number
100122/2020
Filing Date
03-03-2020
Registration No
100076/2020
Registration Date
03-03-2020
Court
Munsiff Court, Haripad
Judge
1-Munsiff, Haripad
Decision Date
25th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--PLAINT RETURNED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sindhu
Adv. SUJITH. S VATHALLOOR KOYICKAL
Respondent(s)
Subash Advocate - IBRAHIMKUTTY. M
Chandrika
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Munsiff, Haripad
Disposed
Orders in IA
For Objection and hearing
Call on
Listed to
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 25-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 17-03-2026 | Orders in IA |
| 12-03-2026 | For Objection and hearing |
| 05-03-2026 | Call on |
| 07-01-2026 | Listed to |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Munsiff Court of Haripad allowed the plaintiff's petition and returned the plaint for presentation before the Family Court, Mavelikara, finding it lacked jurisdiction to try the suit. The court held that under Section 7(c) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes between married parties regarding property matters, and the present suit involving a settlement deed between spouses clearly fell within that jurisdiction. The parties were directed to bear their respective costs, with the plaint to be resubmitted within two months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The Munsiff Court of Haripad allowed the plaintiff's petition and returned the plaint for presentation before the Family Court, Mavelikara, finding it lacked jurisdiction to try the suit. The court held that under Section 7(c) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes between married parties regarding property matters, and the present suit involving a settlement deed between spouses clearly fell within that jurisdiction. The parties were directed to bear their respective costs, with the plaint to be resubmitted within two months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts