Allowed

R.Madhu v. Sunitha P.Nair

Kerala HC5 Dec 2013Mat.Appeal/240/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband appealed against Family Court decree granting wife gold ornaments, maintenance, and dissolving marriage. High Court found judgments were passed without hearing appellant. Appeals allowed; decree set aside and matter remitted for fresh orders after hearing. Directions given for expeditious hearing within three months.

What did the court decide?

Common judgment in O.P.No.270/2007 and O.S. No.170/2009 set aside; matter remitted to Family Court for fresh orders after hearing. Appeals disposed of accordingly.

R.Madhu Vs Sunitha P.Nair — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013/14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶6

Mat.Appeal.No. 240 of 2012 ()

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS 270/2007 of FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM DATED 20-01-2012

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT:

¶9

R.MADHU AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI KINARUVILA VEEDUI, PUTHENCHANTHA.P.O, VALLIKKUNNAM MURI VALLIKKUNNAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.E.N.VISHNU NAMBOODIRI

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFF:

¶12

1. SUNITHA P.NAIR AGED 30 YEARS, SANDHYALAYAM, THAZHAVA.P.O THAZHAVA THEEKUM MURI MEKKU, THAZHAVA VILLAGE KARUNAGAPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 523.

¶13

2. ANJANA, AGED 6 YEARS

¶14

D/O. MADHU, SANDHYALAYAM, THAZHAVA.P.O THAZHAVA THEEKUM MURI MEKKU, THAZHAVA VILLAGE KARUNAGAPALLY TALUK KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 523. (REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER SUNITHA P. NAIR)

¶15

RR1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.BINU GEORGE RR1 & 2 BY ADV. SMT.HEMALATHA

¶16

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-12-2013, ALONG WITH MA. 310/2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

acd

¶18

ANTONY DOMINIC & P.D. RAJAN, JJ.

¶19

Mat. Appeal Nos.240/2012 & 310 of 2012 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 5^th day of December, 2013

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

ANTONY DOMINIC,J.

¶22

The appellant and the respondent in Mat. Appeal No.310/2012 are husband and wife. The respondent filed O.S.No.270/2007 before the Family Court, Kollam to return of 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments or Rs.3,24,000/- being its value, to recover Rs.50,000/- and to recover past maintenance of Rs.1500/- for herself and Rs.1000/- for the child for a period of 18 months each. Subsequently, she also filed O.P.No.170/2009 seeking divorce urging grounds of cruelty and desertion.

¶23

Both the O.P. and O.S were jointly tried and by a common judgment rendered on 20.1.2012, O.S.No.270/2007 was decreed allowing the wife to recover the value of 35 sovereigns of gold or its market value. The past maintenance as prayed for was also decreed. O.P.No.170/2009 was also allowed and the marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce. It is aggrieved by

¶24

Mat. Appeal No.240/12 &Con.case 2

¶25

these two judgments of the Family Court, the appellant husband has filed these appeals.

¶26

We heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶27

The submission made by the learned counsel for the

¶28

appellant was that the judgments were rendered by the Family Court without allowing him to adduce his evidence or affording him an opportunity of hearing in the matter.

¶29

Although the learned counsel for the respondent contradicted the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, we verified the original records received from the Family Court. These records show that on 28.10.2011, the orders have been passed stating that the cases were omitted to be taken up and issuing notice to the parties and posting the cases to 8.11.2011. That day also, it was not taken up and the cases were taken only on 19.12.2011. Here also, it is stated that the cases were omitted to be taken up and notices were issued to the parties. Accordingly, the cases were posted to 26.12.2011. The order dated 17.1.2012 shows that the cases were omitted to be taken up on 26.12.2011 and therefore, notice was again issued and the cases were posted to 19.1.2012. On 19.1.2012, the orders passed is to await

¶30

¶31

Mat. Appeal No.240/12 &Con.case

¶32

notice and the cases were also posted to 20.1.2012. The order dated 20.1.2012 shows that O.S. and O.P. were decreed on that day.

¶33

Therefore, there is nothing in the orders, which indicate that the notices issued by the Family Court were served on the parties or that the parties were heard in the matter. In other words, the order sheets maintained by the Family Court and the extract of the B diary substantiated the case of the appellant that it was without affording him an opportunity of hearing that the cases were decreed on 20.1.2012. If that be so, necessarily, the matter has to be reconsidered by the Family Court and fresh orders in the matter should be passed, after affording the parties concerned an opportunity of hearing.

¶34

Therefore, these appeals are allowed. The common judgment passed by the Family Court, Kollam in O.P.No.270/2007 and O.S. No.170/2009 are set aside. The matter will stand remitted to the Family Court, Chavara which shall pass fresh orders, after affording the parties an opportunity of hearing.

¶35

Since O.Ps were 2007 and 2009, the matter

¶36

Mat. Appeal No.240/12 &Con.case

¶37

¶38

requires an expeditious consideration. Therefore, we direct the parties to appear before the Family Court, Chavara on 2.1.2014 and the Family Court is also directed to dispose of the matter, at any rate, within three months thereafter.

¶39

The Registry will return the records to the Family

¶40

Court, Chavara within whose jurisdiction the matter now falls. The Mat. Appeals are disposed of as above.

¶41

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶42

P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.

¶43

acd

R.Madhu v. Sunitha P.Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Madhu v. Sunitha P.Nair

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

Vinoj Mathew Vs Simi Thomas

Udayakumar.S. Vs Sindhu.K.

Belcita Vincent Gomez Vs Vincent Gomez

M/S.Tngicube Technology Resources (I) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bharathi Sanchar Nigam Limited

K.Ajayakumar Vs Mini

Vijith C Vs the Superintendent of Police