Allowed

P.K.Farida v. Asarintavida Faizal

Kerala HC3 Oct 2012Mat.Appeal/695/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment sets aside dismissals of original petitions for default in dissolution and restitution suits. The High Court directed the Family Court to file and dispose of the appellant's petitions on merits after hearing both sides.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Family Court, Kozhikode to take Original Petitions Nos. 496/2010 and 497/2010 on file and dispose of them on merits after hearing both sides.

P.K.Farida Vs Asarintavida Faizal — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE &

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/11TH ASWINA 1934

¶6

Mat.Appeal.No. 695 of 2011 ( ) -----------------------------OP NO.497/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

P.K.FARIDA, D/O IBRAHIM HAJI, POTHUKUTTIYIL HOUSE, P.O.ORKATTIRI ERAMALA AMSOM, ORKATTERI DESOM, VATAKARA TALUK.

¶9

BY ADVS.SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:

¶11

ASARINTAVIDA FAIZAL AGED 36 YEARS, S/O ABDULLA, P.O.CHORODE NEAR MUNDASSERI KSHETRAM, MUTTUNGAL AMSOM DESOM VATAKARA TALUK.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

¶13

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-10-2012 ALONG WITH MA NO.750/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

BKA

¶15

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

¶16

Mat. Appeals Nos. 695/2011 & 750/2011 -----------------------------------------Dated this the 3^rd day of October, 2012

¶17

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶18

Babu Mathew P. Joseph, J.

¶19

The appellant/wife filed OP No.497/2010 before the Family Court, Kozhikode for the dissolution of her marriage with the respondent. She has also filed OP No.496/2010 before that court for realisation of money and gold ornaments. Both the Original Petitions were dismissed for default stating that she had not taken the steps even after giving sufficient time. Aggrieved by the orders so passed by the court below, she has preferred these appeals.

¶20

MC No.190/2010 has also been filed before the court below claiming maintenance to the wife and child. That was dismissed and, against that order, RP(FC) No.199/2011 has been preferred by the wife and child before this Court. In that RP(FC), Sri.T.G.Rajendran, advocate, appeared for the respondent. This Court has disposed of that RP(FC)

¶21

..2..

¶22

MA Nos: 695/2011 & 750/2011

¶23

directing the parties to appear before the Family Court on 14.11.2011 enabling the court below to consider the matter again and to take a decision.

¶24

Since Sri.T.G.Rajendran, advocate, was appearing for the respondent in RP(FC) No.199/2011, as requested by us, he has appeared for the respondent in these appeals as well.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the

¶26

sides.

¶27

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not committed any default in the court below. She was not directed to take any particular step in the cases concerned. Therefore, the finding entered by the court below that the appellant failed to take steps in the court below is without any basis. The respondent has not filed objections in both the cases, she further submits.

¶28

Having heard the learned counsel on both the sides and also considering the fact that this Court has directed the court below to consider again MC No.190/2010 and to take a

¶29

..3..

¶30

MA Nos: 695/2011 & 750/2011

¶31

decision in that case, we are of the view that the appellant should be given an opportunity to continue with her Original Petitions before the court below and the court below has to be directed to proceed with the matters in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of being heard to both the sides.

¶32

Therefore, both these appeals are disposed of with a direction to the Family Court, Kozhikode to take Original Petitions Nos. 496/2010 and 497/2010 preferred by the appellant on file and dispose of them on merits after affording an opportunity of being heard to both the sides.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

¶35

Sd/- BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE

¶36

bka/-

¶37

//True copy//

¶38

PA to Judge

P.K.Farida v. Asarintavida Faizal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Farida v. Asarintavida Faizal

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

Narayanan Vs Sindhu

Lekshmi Prasad Vs Harish G. Panicker

Rajesh Vs Ravi

M.K.Sreejith Vs Deepa.K.

M.K.Sreejith Vs Deepa.K.

M.K.Sreejith Vs Deepa K. and Another