ANTONY DOMINIC, J The petitioner is the father and respondents 2 and 3 are his children. Respondents filed O.P.No.1152 of 2013 before the Family Court against the petitioner, with prayers for declaration of their right over an immovable property, for compensation and for realisation of money from the petitioner. It is on receipt of the notice from the Family Court that the petitioner has filed this O.P contending that none of the provisions of Section 7 of Family Court authorises the Family Court to entertain a dispute in the nature of the one raised in the O.P. Therefore, according to the petitioner, in the absence of jurisdiction conferred on the Family Court, O.P is not maintainable.
2. In our view, once an OP is filed before a Family Court and notice is issued to the respondent and if such respondent has a dispute regarding the maintainability of the O.P, the course open to the respondent is to raise the issue of maintainability before the Family Court itself. In this O.P, such a course of action has not been adopted by the petitioner and instead, he has straight away rushed to this court with this petition. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the matter at this stage and we relegate the petitioner to raise the issue of maintainability before the Family Court itself. op(fc) 3209/2013 2 We also direct that in the event the petitioner raises the issue of maintainability as above, Family Court will consider that issue as a preliminary issue and render its order as expeditiously as possible.
OP is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE P.D.RAJAN, JUDGE lgk