Dismissed

Sujeesh Kumar v. Remya

Kerala HC12 Oct 2012OP (FC)/3384/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, addressing an interim application, declined to exercise its visitorial jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to correct an interim maintenance order passed by a subordinate Family Court in Malappuram, directing the petitioner to pay interim maintenance and litigation expenses to the respondents.

What did the court decide?

Interim maintenance order passed by the Family Court, Malappuram, was not quashed or corrected under Article 227.

Sujeesh Kumar Vs Remya — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/20TH ASWINA 1934 OP (FC).No. 3384 of 2012 (R) ---------------------------ORDER IN I.A.NO.2235/2011 IN OP.1271/2010 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM PETITIONER(S):

¶4

SUJEESH KUMAR, AGED 33 YEARS S/O. PARAMESWARAN, AGED 33 YEARS RESIDING AT MECHERIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MULLAMPRA MANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 121. BY ADVS.SRI.K.P.MADHU SRI.C.SALIM

¶5

RESPONDENT(S): --------------

¶6

REMYA AGED 26 YEARS, D/O. RAVEENDRAN PANTHAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MARUTHOOR P.O.

¶7

MELE PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679 306.

¶8

ABHINAV KRISHNA AGED 2 1/2 YEARS, S/O. SUJEESH KUMAR

¶9

REP. BY GUARDIAN AND MOTHER IST RESPONDENT REMYA - DO-

¶10

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶11

12-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

O.P.(FC).3384/2012

¶13

APPENDIX

¶14

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶15

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF PETITION I.E.I.A.2235/2011 IN O.P.1271/2012 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPSONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,MALAPPURAM.

¶16

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF COUNTER FIILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.A.2235/2011 IN O.P.1271/2010 FIILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM.

¶17

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13.8.2012 IN I.A.2235/2011 IN O.P.1271/2012 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILIY COURT, MALAPPPURAM.

¶18

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

'NIL'

// TRUE COPY //

P.S. TO JUDGE.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &

¶23

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

¶24

O.P.(FC) No. 3384 of 2012

¶25

Dated this the 12^th day of October, 2012

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

¶28

Exhibit P3 is under challenge. By Ext.P3, the Family Court, Malappuram, has directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs.2500/- to the respondents and Rs.2000/- to them as litigation expenses. O.P.No.1271 of 2010 was filed by the petitioner herein for restitution of conjugal rights. It is in that O.P. that I.A.No.2235/2011 was filed by the respondents. The prayer of the respondents was that they be paid at the rate of Rs.7000/- for the first respondent and Rs.5000/- for the second respondent and Rs.10,000/- was claimed for litigation expenses. It is as against that prayer that Ext.P3 has been passed. K.P.Madhu, learned counsel for the petitioner, would assail Ext.P3 on various grounds raised in the O.P He made very fervent submissions before us. However, it is clear to our mind

¶29

¶30

[O.P.(FC) No.3384/2012]

¶31

having gaged Ext.P3 by the parameters which are applicable for exercise of visitorial jurisdiction by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution that Ext.P3 is not an order which is liable to be corrected under that provision. One of the submissions of Mr. Madhu was that the respondents have filed a maintenance case before the Family Court, Palakkad. It is during the pendency of that maintenance case that the respondents filed the interlocutory application in the present case which is before the Family Court, Malappuram and secured Ext.P3. Even the above submission has not dissuade us from declining jurisdiction under Article 227. But, we make it clear that it is open to the petitioner to bring it to the notice of the Family Court, Palakkad that Ext.P3 has been passed by the Family Court, Malappuram and refused to be interfered with by this Court.

¶32

This O.P.(FC) is disposed of as above.

¶33

Sd/PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.

¶34

Sd/BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶35

krs.

Sujeesh Kumar v. Remya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujeesh Kumar v. Remya

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

V.S.Valsala Kumari Vs S.Prahaladan

Sindhu @ Linta Vs Hilal Babu

Mathew Korah @ Mathai Vs Aleyamma @ Aley

Chekkat Reji Alaxander Vs Reena Alex

Sudesan Vs Praseena Sudesan

Thomas Vs Omana