The Bombay High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the Family Court's judgment, which had dismissed a petition for sole ownership of a jointly owned flat. The petition, filed by the appellant after securing a divorce, was dismissed by the Family Court under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) because the appellant had failed to include the property dispute in the original divorce petition.

1. Background:

The appellant and respondent were married in 1967 and had two sons. In 1996-97, the couple purchased a flat in Mumbai in their joint names. The appellant later filed for divorce in 2013, citing cruelty and desertion. The divorce was granted ex-parte in September 2013. Subsequently, the appellant filed a petition in 2017 before the Family Court in Bandra, Mumbai, seeking a declaration of sole ownership of the jointly owned flat and other reliefs.

2. Family Court's Decision:

The Family Court dismissed the petition under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC, stating that the appellant should have included the property dispute in the original divorce proceedings. The Court emphasized that since the cause of action (the marital relationship) was the same, the appellant was barred from filing a separate suit regarding the flat.

3. Appeal to High Court:

The appellant challenged the Family Court's decision in the Bombay High Court, arguing that the cause of action for divorce and the property dispute were different. The appellant's counsel cited various legal precedents to support this argument.

4. High Court's Analysis:

The High Court analyzed the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC and relevant case law. The Court held that the Family Court was correct in dismissing the petition, as the cause of action for both the divorce and the property dispute was rooted in the same marital relationship. The appellant's failure to include the flat in the divorce proceedings barred him from seeking relief in a subsequent suit.

5. Conclusion:

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Family Court's judgment. The appellant's petition for sole ownership of the flat was found to be legally unsustainable due to the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC.