Dismissed

Karanjiv Singh Sethi v. Mrs.Eshwin Kaur

Kerala HC15 Dec 2010OP (FC)/1176/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the original petition noting it relates to a transferred divorce case. The court directed the Family Court to actively pursue settlement through mediation or counseling and permitted the petitioner, settled in Mumbai, to appear by counsel except on dates fixed for personal appearance.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; directions issued to Family Court for settlement efforts and relaxed appearance norms for petitioner.

Karanjiv Singh Sethi Vs Mrs.Eshwin Kaur — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2010 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1932

¶4

OP (FC).No. 1176 of 2010(R)

¶5

--------------------------OP.715/2010 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM ....................

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

¶8

KARANJIV SINGH SETHI, A3, FLYING CARPLET, CORNER OF 13TH & 17TH ROAD, KHAR (W), MUMBAI.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

¶12

MRS.ESHWIN KAUR, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O.MR.RAVINDER SINGH CHANDHOK, G-306, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036.

¶13

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

**R.BASANT & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. *************************

¶15

**O.P(F.C) No.1176 of 2010 *******************************

¶16

Dated this the 15^th day of December, 2010

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

BASANT, J.

¶19

The petitioner/husband is the respondent in a petition for divorce filed by the respondent herein, his wife. That petition was initially filed before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai. The same has been transferred to the Family Court, Ernakulam vide order of the Supreme Court in Transfer Petition (Civil) No.31 of 2010. The matter has now reached the Family Court, Ernakulam. The same stands numbered as O.P.No.715 of 2010. This petition is filed by the petitioner for an early out of turn expeditious disposal of the said O.P. There are other connected matters also, it is submitted. In the course of submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent Shri P.Jacob Varghese support the prayer. In fact the counsel submit that if an active effort is made for reference of the parties to a competent Mediator, there is every possibility that the matter can be settled between the parties amicably. The counsel request that this Court may refer the parties for mediation. But we are not persuaded to do that as we

¶20

O.P(F.C) No.1176 of 2010 2

¶21

may not be able to cope up with such requests if made in all cases. However, we are satisfied that specific directions can be issued to the Family Court, Ernakulam to actively pursue effort for settlement of the disputes by the parties harmoniously by intervention of the court, by counselling or by referring the parties to a Mediator. The Family Court is at liberty to fix a convenient date to refer the parties for mediation or whichever course the Family Court deems fit and proper.

¶22

With specific directions to the Family Court that effort must be made to dispose of O.P.No.715 of 2010 as expeditiously as possible by settlement, if that option is there, or by a considered disposal at the earliest, this Original Petition is dismissed.

¶23

It is submitted that connected cases are also there. The parties shall be at liberty to bring to the notice of the Family Court the pendency of connected matters. The Family Court must attempt to dispose of all connected matters also. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is permanently settled at Mumbai. He is represented by his counsel before the Family Court. If the Family Court were to insist on ritualistic appearance of the petitioner on all dates of

¶24

O.P(F.C) No.1176 of 2010

¶25

¶26

posting, it would work out great prejudice and hardship to the petitioner. We have no reason to assume that the Family Court would resort to such an unreasonable course. The Family Court shall specify the dates on which the parties must appear in person before it. On all other days, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the petitioner can be permitted to be represented by his counsel.

¶27

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

¶28

(K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)

¶29

rtr/

Karanjiv Singh Sethi v. Mrs.Eshwin Kaur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karanjiv Singh Sethi v. Mrs.Eshwin Kaur

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

Vincent Vs Jyline Maria Antony

Vinodan Vs Chathu

Hamza Vs Superintendent of Police,Palakkad

Madhu Vs the Director General of Polcie & 3 Ors.

P.Aneesh Vs State of Kerala

P.K.Muhammed @ Innippa Vs Palembadiyan Kodrapurathu Cheeku