This matrimonial appeal against the dismissal of a maintenance application was dismissed. The High Court held the Family Court was justified in declining the claim due to the appellant residing away without cause and possessing the respondent's assets, with no cruelty alleged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2013/30TH SRAVANA, 1935
Mat.Appeal.No. 457 of 2009 (B)
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 344/2007 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD DATED 11-12-2008
APPELLANT/PETITIONR:
-------------------SANTHAKUMARI,D/O. RAMAN, AGED 43 YEARS, THEYANKADU VEEDU, KANNANUR P.O., PALAKKAD.
BY ADVS.SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (BALARAMAPURAM)
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:
--------------------------
BALAKRISHNAN S/O. KUNJU, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT PRIYA HOUSE, MEERA ESTATE 5TH CROSS STREET, GOURIPALAYAM, COIMBATORE TAMIL NADU - 641028.
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC & P.D.RAJAN, JJ. ======================== Mat. Appeal No. 457 OF 2009
=======================
Dated this the 21st day of August, 2013
J U D G M E N T
Antony Dominic, J.
This appeal is filed against the dismissal of OP No.344/07 filed by the appellant before the Family Court, Palakkad. The judgment was rendered as early as on 11/12/2008 and it is challenging that judgment, this appeal which was filed on 17/6/2009, is now brought up for consideration.
Mat.Appeal No.457/09
: 2 :
properties are in the possession of the appellant was also not challenged in the cross examination. That apart, Ext.B1 also showed the admission of the appellant that she was in possession of the entire properties of the respondent husband. The Family Court has also found that the respondent was employed in Tamil Nadu and that the appellant in clear terms deposed in her evidence that she was unwilling to live with him at the place of his employment. Therefore, on evidence before the Family Court, it has concluded that the appellant was residing away from the respondent without any justifiable cause. She also was in possession of the assets owned by the respondent and were taking income from them.
Appeal is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge
P.D.RAJAN, Judge
Rp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Family Court was justified in dismissing the appellant's claim for monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000.
Whether the appellant residing away from the respondent without justifiable cause and being in possession of his assets bars her claim.
Santhakumari
Balakrishnan
Antony Dominic
P.D. Rajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
