Disposed

Ratheesh v. Harsha

Kerala HC5 Jun 2012OP (FC)/537/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of an O.P.(FC) filed by a husband against his wife, setting aside Family Court orders dismissing interim applications without speaking orders. The court directed the Family Court to reconsider the matter afresh and pass a reasoned decision on the divorce petition and delay condonation.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the Family Court orders in I.A. Nos. 911 and 912 of 2011; direct Family Court to pass a reasoned order.

Ratheesh Vs Harsha — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/15TH JYAISHTA 1934

¶7

OP (FC).No. 537 of 2012 (R)

¶8

OPDIV.857/2009 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM

¶9

PETITIONER:

¶10

RATHEESH, AGED 28 YEARS S/O. LATE VIJAYAN, KUNNAPALLY HOUSE, KAPPIL POST WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.N.RAGHUNATH

¶12

SRI.JINU JOSEPH

¶13

RESPONDENT:

¶14

HARSHA D/O. CHANDRASEKHARAN, THAZHEPURAKKAL HOUSE ERANJHIMANGADU AMSOM, ARAMKODE POST, NILAMBUR MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.686234

¶15

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

O.P.(F.C.) 537 OF 2012

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.9.11.2009 EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF NOTICE IN I.A.912 OF 2011 EXT.P4(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT RECEIVED ALONG WITH NOTICE IN I.A.912 OF 2011 EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN I.A.912/2011 EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.911/2011 EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF the ORDER IN I.A.912/2011

¶20

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶21

// TRUE COPY //

¶22

PA TO JUDGE

¶23

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

¶24

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(F.C.) No.537 of 2012 R

¶25

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶26

Dated this the 5^th day of June, 2012

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

K.T. Sankaran J.,

¶29

The petitioner filed O.P.(H.M.A.) No.857 of 2009, against the respondent, before the Family Court, Malappuram, for divorce. The original petition was allowed as per the ex-parte decree dated 9.11.2009. The respondent filed I.A. Nos.911 and 912 of 2011 to

¶30

set aside the ex-parte decree and to condone the delay. According to the petitioner herein, he did not receive notice in the application for condonation of delay and he got notice only in I.A. No.912 of 2011, the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The petitioner filed a counter affidavit dated 29.11.2011, in which he stated that after ex-parte decree dated 9.11.2009, he waited for one year and six months and thereafter he married another woman, on

¶31

O.P.(F.C.) No.537 of 2012

¶32

:2:

¶33

24.4.2011. It is also stated that no grounds are made out for

¶34

condoning the long delay.

¶35

The Family Court disposed of I.A. Nos.911 and 912 of

¶36

2011, as per the order dated 10.1.2012. The orders are quoted below:

¶37

“I.A.No.911 of 2011

¶38

Petition filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶39

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, I allowed this petition on cost of Rs.500/- For payment of cost 13.1.2012. I.A.No.912 of 2011

¶40

Petition filed under Section151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte order.

¶41

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, I allowed this petition on cost of Rs.500/-. For payment of cost 13.1.2012.”

¶42

The Family Court did not pass any speaking order in the

¶43

interlocutory applications. The objections raised by the petitioner were not considered by the Family Court.

¶44

O.P.(F.C.) No.537 of 2012

¶45

:3:

¶46

For the aforesaid reasons, the orders passed by the Family

¶47

Court in I.A. Nos. 911 and 912 of 2011 are set aside. The Family Court shall consider the matter afresh and pass a reasoned order.

¶48

The Original Petition is disposed of as above.

¶49

¶50

K.T. SANKARAN, (JUDGE)

¶51

sd M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE)

¶52

dl/

Ratheesh v. Harsha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratheesh v. Harsha

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

Pokkalathkandy P.Gopinathan Vs Kammalatt Baby

Moidutty Vs Rahmath

Moidutty Vs Rahmath and Others

Sasikala Vs Anil Kumar

Shejina Vs State of Kerala

Nafeesa Vs the Superintendent of Police