Remanded

Kousalya v. Mano Mohan

Kerala HC6 Feb 2008Mat.Appeal/532/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the matrimonial appeal, setting aside the Family Court's order on past maintenance and quantum due to lack of evidence. The matter was remitted to the Family Court for a fresh decision considering the petitioner's eligibility and respondent's capacity. The case was remanded for disposal within three months.

What did the court decide?

The order denying past maintenance and quantum was set aside; the matter remitted to the Family Court for fresh consideration.

Kousalya Vs Mano Mohan — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929

¶3

Mat.Appeal.No. 532 of 2007() ---------------------------OP.866/2005 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR ....................

¶4

PETITIONER: PETITIONER

¶5

---------------------KOUSALYA, AGED 82, W/O VELAYUDHAN, KANNAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KAIPAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DIST.

¶6

BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR

¶7

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT

¶8

¶9

MANO MOHAN, S/O VELAYUDHAN, KANNAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR SRI MURUGAN THEATRE, CHENTRAPINNI VILLAGE(PO), THRISSUR DIST.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL

¶11

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.

¶13

Mat.Appeal No.532 of 2007

¶14

Dated this the 6^th day of February, 2008

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Kurian Joseph,J.

¶17

This is an appeal at the instance of the mother of the respondent. She is aggrieved since the Family Court disallowed the claim for past maintenance. There is also a grievance regarding the quantum of maintenance. It is seen from the order that the same is passed without taking any evidence. Apparently the court went by the willingness of the respondent son to pay future maintenance at the rate of Rs.400/-. What is the eligibility and what is the capacity have not been considered. There is no evidence either. True the court has gone for a speedy disposal of the case in view of the age of the appellant. But even then evidence should be taken. The parties agree that the matter can be sent back to the Family Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Therefore, we set aside the order as far as

¶18

the denial of past maintenance and the quantum are concerned. O.P.No.866/2005 is remitted to the Family Court, Thrissur for

¶19

Mat.Appeal No.532/2007

¶20

-:2:-

¶21

proper decision in accordance with law on past maintenance and also on future maintenance taking note of the eligibility of the petitioner and capacity of the respondent. The parties will appear before the Family Court on 7-3-2008 and the case shall be disposed of within another three months.

¶22

(KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE)

¶23

(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE)

¶24

ahg.

¶25

KURIAN JOSEPH & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ.

¶26

Mat.Appeal No.532 of 2007

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

6^th February, 2008

Kousalya v. Mano Mohan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kousalya v. Mano Mohan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kochuthresia Vs Kerala State

Retnamma Vs Saraswathy

Gangadharan Vs Chinnamma

Thomas Vs Dr.a.a.Henry

State of Kerala Vs Bhasi Nair

State of Kerala Vs Aravindaghosh