Dismissed

T.M.Varghese v. Jinsi

Kerala HC21 Aug 2013OP (FC)/2722/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a direction from the High Court for expedited disposal of an underlying Family Court petition alleging delay. The Court noted the Family Court report showed no fault regarding delay and disposed of the petition without issuing directions, urging the lower court to expedite naturally.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's prayer for a direction for expeditious disposal was dismissed.

T.M.Varghese Vs Jinsi — Kerala HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶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

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2013/30TH SRAVANA, 1935

¶6

OP (FC).No. 2722 of 2013 (R)

¶7

AGAINST OPDIV 313/2012 of FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶8

PETITIONER(S):

¶9

T.M.VARGHESE S/O. MATHEW, THOPPIL HOUSE, PANGARAPPILLY MULANTHURUTHY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.T.PRASAD

¶11

SRI.A.HAROON RASHEED

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

JINSI

¶14

D/O. GEORGE, KUZHIKATTIL HOUSE, KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE VILANGI P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶15

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-082013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

OP (FC).No. 2722 of 2013 (R)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT-P1-TRUE COPY OF THE O.P 313/2012 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

//True Copy//

PA TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC & P.D.RAJAN, JJ. ======================== O.P(FC) No. 2722 OF 2013

¶25

=======================

¶26

Dated this the 21^st day of August, 2013

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

Antony Dominic, J.

¶29

This OP is filed seeking a direction to the Family Court, Ernakulam for an expeditious disposal of OP No.313/12. On the filing of this OP, by order dated 12/8/13, a report was called for from the Family Court, Ernakulam. Accordingly, report dated 17.8.13 has been obtained, which reads thus;

¶30

“Referring to the above, I may report that the OP came up for 1^st hearing on 7/5/2012, but notice served on the respondent only on 8/11/2012. It is also revealed from the proceedings sheet that the respondent has returned to the matrimonial home, thus both of them are residing under the same roof, as per the submission dated 24.7.13, on the side of petitioner. Therefore, this court has ordered to serve the summons, through special messenger, accordingly, it was served by affixture. She appeared in person on 30/1/2013, then referred for counselling and posted for report on 5/4/13.

¶31

On 5/4/2013, there was no sitting, then to 3/5/13 for counter to 23/7/2013. But no counter filed on 23/7/13. Now the case stands posted for counter within no further time to 24.9.13. This is the present status of the case”.

¶32

A perusal of the report does not lead us to a conclusion

¶33

that the Family Court can be faulted on the ground of any delay on its part. Therefore, we are not persuaded to issue any direction

¶34

OP(FC) No.2722/13

¶35

: 2 :

¶36

as sought for by the petitioner. Be that as it may, it is up to the Family Court to expedite the matter.

¶37

OP is disposed of as above.

¶38

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge

¶39

Sd/- P.D.RAJAN, Judge

¶40

¶41

//True Copy//

¶42

PA TO JUDGE

T.M.Varghese v. Jinsi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.M.Varghese v. Jinsi

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

M.D.David Vs K.G.Mercy

Ramya Vs Denni

Subitha Noushad Vs the Director General of Police

Ravichandra Vs Mangalagowri

P K Shinu Vs Dhanya Madhavan

Santhakumari Vs Balakrishnan