The Kerala High Court dismissed a matrimonial appeal challenging a Family Court order that rejected a claim for divorce/nullity due to the respondent's insanity. The Court found no illegality in the lower court's decision where the appellant failed to produce cogent oral or documentary evidence.
The matrimonial appeal was dismissed.
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 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/16TH SRAVANA, 1935
Mat.Appeal.No. 666 of 2012 (A)
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPHMA 888/2009 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTARAKKARA DATED 13-06-2012
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
RAJESH AGED 36 YEARS S/O.BHARGHAVAN PILLAI, THARAYIL VEEDU ERAVICHIRA PADINJARE MURI, SOORANADU THEKKU VILLAGE KUNNATHUR TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS:
1. SARIKAKUMARI AGED 24 YEARS, D/O.SASIDHARANPILLAI, KALLUVILA VEEDU KADAPPA MURI, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE KARUNAGAPALLY TALUK - 690519.
2. SASIDHARANPILLAI, AGED 52 YEARS, KALLUVILA VEEDU, KADAPPA MURI MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK-690519.
R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.SIJU R1,R2 BY ADV. SMT.CHITHRA.S.BABU
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-082013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC & P.D.RAJAN, JJ. ======================== Mat. Appeal No. 666 OF 2012
=======================
Dated this the 7th day of August, 2013
J U D G M E N T
Antony Dominic, J.
The challenge in this appeal is against the order of the Family Court, Kottarakkara in OP (HMA) No.888/2009. OP was filed by the appellant for a declaration that his marriage with the 1st respondent was null and void or in the alternative to dissolve the marriage by a decree of divorce. The allegation of the appellant was that the 1st respondent is a mentally insane person and that the insanity was suppressed from him while obtaining consent.
Mat.Appeal.No.666/12
: 2 :
case where respondent is ex parte , the petitioner before the Family Court can expect to succeed in a case only if he satisfies the conscience of the Court that the respondent was insane. In so far as this case is concerned, the appellant did not produce any oral evidence nor documentary evidence substantiating his ground. In such circumstances, if the Family Court has rejected the case filed by him, we cannot find any illegality in such an order.
Mat.Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge
Sd/-
P.D.RAJAN, Judge
Rp
//True Copy//
PA TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal against a Family Court order rejecting a claim of bigamy due to mental insanity should be allowed.
Whether the appellant succeeded in proving the respondent's insanity despite lack of evidence in the lower court.
RAJESH
SARIKAKUMARI
SASIDHARANPILLAI
ANTONY DOMINIC
P.D. RAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
