Yagya Bedi v Hari Gobind Bedi

Court:Family Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:FCMC23/1974
Judgment Date:21 Jan 1974
FCMC000023/1974 YAGYA BEDI v. HARI GOBIND BEDI

FCMC000023/1974

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HONG KONG

HOLDEN AT VICTORIA

DIVORCE JURISDICTION

ACTION NO.23 OF 1974

-----------------

BETWEEN
Yagya BEDI Pelitioner
and
Hari Gobind BEDI Respondent

-----------------

Coram: Liu, D.J.

Date of Judgment: 21 January 1974

-----------------

RULING

-----------------

1. Mrs. Bedi filed a petition for separation, custody of the children and maintenance on the 14th January 1974. Before serving her petition, Mrs. Bedi applied ex parte for divers injunctions ordering her husband to remove himself from the matrimonial home, at Flat 101 Rocky Mount, Conduit Road, and restraining him from returning there to or using violence on the Petitioner and her children. I was informed that the matrimonial home was a flat of some 2,000 square feet in a post-war building. There was no evidence one way or the other, but there was every indication that the rental thereof would be in excess of $10,000.00, per annum. Therefore, further clarification on the rental value would seem to offer little in favour of the Petitioner, and the proceedings proceeded on the assumption that the matrimonial home, subjectmatter of the interim injunctions prayed for, was not within the usual jurisdiction of the Court. The affirmations in support of the ex parte summons established a prima facie case, and the only issue was whether the Court sitting in its divorce jurisdiction had jurisdiction to entertain the application. In general, the equitable jurisdiction of the District Courts is limited to matters set out in s.37 of the District Court Ordinance. For injunctions, they are further governed by s.52 of the same Ordinance. Suffice it to say that the District Courts have no jurisdiction to grant an injunction affecting immovable property with annual rental exceeding $5,000.00. The crux of the matter is whether the District Courts' jurisdiction to grant injunctions is more extensive in divorce proceedings.

2. I was greatly assisted by counsel, and I was sufficiently convinced to give a decision extempore. The petition filed by Mrs. Bedi had not been served, and naturally no Answer could have possibly been filed when the ex parte summons came before the Court. The Court was thus seized with jurisdiction in this matter as a divorce court. The jurisdiction of the Divorce County Courts in...

To continue reading

Request your trial