Dismissed

Hamsa v. Sajitha

Kerala HC13 Jun 2012OP (FC)/1100/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed an Original Petition challenging a Family Court order conditioning the setting aside of an ex parte maintenance enhancement on a 50% deposit. The Court found no illegality in the Family Court's justification, denied writ jurisdiction, and noted that the petitioner had to deposit the sum within thirty days. The order was moot as no deposit was made.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner must deposit the specified amount within thirty days to satisfy the condition; failing this, the ex parte order stands set aside only upon compliance.

Hamsa Vs Sajitha — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/23RD JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

OP (FC).No. 1100 of 2012 (R)

¶6

C.M.P.NO.1124/2010 IN M.C.NO.125/2008, FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

HAMSA, AGED 39 YEARS S/O.KUNHIPPA, R/AT THEKKATHU VALAPPIL, KOTTOL OTTAPPILAVU, PAZHANJI POST, KADAVALLUR THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS

¶10

RESPONDENT:

¶11

SAJITHA D/O.ABDULAKUTTY, MANHAKKATTIL VEEDU, KAPPUR POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 101. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU MARTIN BY ADV. SRI.M.M.SALIM BY ADV. SRI.P.T.SHAHUL HAMEED

¶12

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

K.T.SANKARAN & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.

¶14

---------------------------------------------------O.P.(F.C.) NO.1100 OF 2012 R

¶15

---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 13^th day of June, 2012

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

K.T.Sankaran, J.

¶18

In the wedlock of the petitioner and the respondent, a male child was born, who is now aged about 14 years. M.C.No.121 of 1998 was filed by the respondent claiming maintenance for the minor son. A sum of 500/- per month was awarded as maintenance. After several years elapsed, M.C.No.125 of 2008 was filed claiming enhancement of maintenance. The Family Court enhanced the monthly maintenance to the child from 500/- to `2,500/- as per an exparte order dated 16.8.2008. 630 days thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the Family Court to set aside the exparte order and to condone the delay. He contended that he was a coolie working in Chennai and he was not aware of the proceedings before the Family Court. He came to know of the order passed by the Family Court only when he received notice in the Execution Petition.

¶19

O.P.(F.C.) NO.1100 OF 2012 R

¶20

:: 2 ::

¶21

The respondent raised a contention that the petitioner was employed in a Gulf country for the last ten years. The Family Court thought that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to contest the case on the merits and, therefore, the exparte order was set aside on condition that the petitioner shall deposit one-half of the maintenance amount payable to his minor son. The petitioner challenges that part of the order by which he is made liable to deposit one-half of the amount as a condition for setting aside the exparte order.

¶22

At the time when M.C.No.121 of 1998 was filed, the child was a new born baby. Now the child has attained the age of fourteen years. For a new born baby, 500/- was awarded as maintenance. It has now been enhanced to 2,500/-. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the court below was fully justified in directing the petitioner to deposit one-half of the maintenance amount payable as a condition for condoning the long delay of 630 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte order as well as to set aside the exparte order. There is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the order impugned in this Original

¶23

O.P.(F.C.) NO.1100 OF 2012 R

¶24

:: 3 ::

¶25

Petition. No grounds are made out for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner deposits the amount within thirty days from today, it shall be treated that the condition has been complied with.

¶26

The Original Petition (F.C.) is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶27

(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge

¶28

(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge

¶29

ahz/

Hamsa v. Sajitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hamsa v. Sajitha

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

Sabeena Beevi Vs Sajina Beevi

Vittala D.Prabhu Vs Nalini Shenoy

K.a.Sahfi Vs Hyfa

P.Saraswathi Vs Krishnadas P.

Chandini Sivan Vs Shibu K

Sudhani Vs Shalini.M.M.