Allowed

James Samual @ Samual James v. Mercikutty

Kerala HC19 Oct 2012OP (FC)/3441/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This original petition under Article 227 sought early disposal of two pending family court petitions. The High Court, upon reporting delays, ordered the family court judge to complete pre-trial steps and dispose of the petitions within two months of them becoming ripe for trial.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Family Court judge to dispose of the two Original Petitions at the earliest and finally within two months of them becoming ripe for trial.

James Samual @ Samual James Vs Mercikutty — Civil Procedure and Limitation | 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

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/27TH ASWINA 1934

¶6

OP (FC).No. 3441 of 2012 (R)

¶7

----------------------------------OP.124/2010 of FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

JAMES SAMUAL @ SAMUAL JAMES, AGED 52 YEARS PORATTOORE HOUSE, ATTACHAKAL P.O, KONNI PATHANAMTHITTA NOW RESIDING AT PRASANTHI HOUSE NO 34/816 (RA109), BEENA ANJUMANA ROAD EDAPPALLY SOUTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT KOCHI 682025

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

MERCYKUTTY @ MERCY, AGED 48 YEARS ROSE DALE, MAYYANADU CHERRY MAYYANADU NOW RESIDING AT SNEHA BAHAVAN KOTTIYAMCHERRY, AADICHANALLUR, KOLLAM 691573

¶13

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &

¶15

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

¶16

O. P. (FC) No.3441 of 2012

¶17

Dated this the 19^th day of October, 2012

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Pius C. Kuriakose, J

¶20

This Original Petition under Article 227 is filed by the petitioner who is the respondent in O.P. Nos.124/10 and 125/10 on the files of the Family Court, Kollam seeking an early disposal of the two Original Petitions.

¶21

On considering this Original Petition for admission, we directed the Registrar (Judicial) to contact the Judge of the Family Court and find out as to when at the earliest according to the learned Judge the above two OPs can be disposed of. Accordingly the Registrar (Judicial) has submitted a report after contacting the Presiding Officer of the Family Court. The report is to the effect that the two Original Petitions presently stand posted to 02/01/2013 for filing objections. After filing the objections the parties are to

¶22

O. P. (FC) No.3441 of 2012 -2-

¶23

be referred to counselling and pre-trial steps have to be completed and then only it will be possible to take up the two Original Petitions for trial and disposal. It is also reported that the present Presiding Officer is being transferred and a new Presiding Officer Smt.N.Thulasi Bai, former District Judge will be taking charge shortly. According to the present Presiding Officer, minimum time of six months after filing objections will be required for disposal of the two OPs.

¶24

Having regard to what is reported to us by the Registrar(Judicial), we are of the view that the OP can be disposed of at this stage itself even without notice to the respondent in the following terms:-

¶25

The Presiding Officer of Family Court, Kollam is directed to ensure, by passing peremptory orders regarding filing of objections, counselling and regarding taking up of pretrial steps, that the two OPs become ripe for trial at the earliest. There will be a further direction that the learned Judge shall try and finally dispose of the two OPs at the earliest and at

¶26

-3-

¶27

O. P. (FC) No.3441 of 2012

¶28

any rate within two months of the two OPs becoming ripe for trial.

¶29

Sd/PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE

¶30

Sd/BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE

¶31

kns/-

¶32

//TRUE COPY//

¶33

P.A. TO JUDGE

James Samual @ Samual James v. Mercikutty

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

James Samual @ Samual James v. Mercikutty

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

Raheena Vs K.H.Akbar

Ratheesh Vs State of Kerala

Mansoor K.S. Vs Superintendent of Police (Rural), Thrissur

Kavitha Eapen Vs Giju George

T.C.Shajina Vs Muhammed Haria T.U.

P. Praveen Vs Nil