Allowed

Gopalakrishnan v. Maya

Kerala HC19 Jun 2009Mat.Appeal/85/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In these matrimonial appeals filed under Section 19(1) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act concerning maintenance and return of property, the High Court of Kerala allowed the appeals despite counsel's request. The court set aside the lower court's judgments and remanded the cases to the Family Court, directi

What did the court decide?

Appeals allowed; judgments in O.P.s 447/2004 and 448/2004 set aside; cases remanded to Family Court for amendment of pleadings and fresh evidence.

Gopalakrishnan Vs Maya — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931

¶6

Mat.Appeal.No. 85 of 2007 --------------------------OP.447/2004 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM

¶7

APPELLANT/RESPONDENT

¶8

----------------------------------GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 60 YEARS, EDAKKATTU VEEDU, MURIKKUMPUZHA KARA, MEENACHIL VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.DAISY A.PHILIPOSE

¶10

RESPONDENT: PETITIONER

¶11

¶12

MAYA, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, MADUKKAYIL VEETIL, MANCOMBU KARA, MOONNILVAU VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶13

ADV. SRI.T.I.DANIEL FOR R1

¶14

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/06/2009, ALONG WITH MA NO. 525 OF 2007 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

ORDER ON I.A. NOS.460 & 16224 OF 2008 IN M.A. NO. 85/2007

¶16

DISMISSED.

¶17

19-6-2009 SD/-R. BASANT,JUDGE SD/-M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE

TRUE COPY

P.S.TO JUDGE

ks.

R.BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ

¶22

==============================

¶23

MAT APPEAL NOS. 85 & 525 OF 2007

¶24

============================

¶25

DATED THIS THE 19^th DAY OF JUNE 2009

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Hari Rani,J.

¶28

These appeals are preferred by the appellant/respondent in O.P.Nos.447/2004 and 448/2004 of the Family Court under Section 19(1) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act . The respondent herein is the daughter-in-law of the appellant.

¶29

O.P.No.448/2004 filed by the respondent against the appellant for return of amounts and gold ornaments was allowed in her favour. She was permitted to realize Rs.40,000/- with 6% interest from the date of petition till realization and to recover 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its present value Rs.1,20,000/- with 6% interest from the date of judgment. O.P.No.448/2004 filed by the respondent for maintenance was also allowed granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month from the appellant.

¶30

When these appeals were taken up for hearing, both counsel prayed for remand of the cases. It is submitted that opportunity may be given to both sides to amend the pleadings and to adduce further

¶31

MA.NOS.85 & 525/2007

¶32

-2-

¶33

evidence. We are satisfied that parties must be permitted to amend their pleadings and adduce proper evidence thereafter for a proper and just adjudication of the disputes raised. In these circumstances , it is not necessary for us to advert to facts in any greater detail in this judgment.

¶34

Accordingly, these appeals are allowed and the judgments in O.P.No.447/2004 and O.P.No.448/2004 dated 16-11-2006 and 29-12-2005 respectively are set aside and the cases are remanded to the lower court. The learned Judge is directed to afford the parties an opportunity to amend the pleadings and to adduce further evidence in these matters.

¶35

Both parties shall appear before the Family Court on 1-7-2009. The Family Court shall ensure that these cases are disposed of as expeditiously as possible, at any rate before 1-10-2009. Compliance shall be reported to this Court.

Sd/-

R. BASANT, JUDGE

Sd/-

M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE

TRUE COPY

P.S.TO JUDGE

MA.NOS.85 & 525/2007 -3-

¶44

ks.

Gopalakrishnan v. Maya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopalakrishnan v. Maya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asokan Vs Rajalekshmi

Vinija Vs State of Kerala

Philip Thomas Palamoottil Vs Sherry Susan Koshy

Gopalakrishnan Vs Maya

T.D. Kuriakose Vs M.J. Jigili

Jyothidev.v.S. Vs the Superintendent Fo Police and Ors.