Allowed

Muhammed Farook v. Noushida

Kerala HC18 Feb 2013OP (FC)/469/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's original petition under Article 227 to set aside the Family Court's dismissal of an interim application. It permitted summoning a 'thalaq nama' and a witness to ascertain maintenance liability, subject to deposit of maintenance arrears and payment of costs. The main petition was directed to be disposed of within two months.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned order; allowed IA No.2020/2012 subject to deposit of Rs.6,250 maintenance arrears and payment of Rs.2,000 costs; directed main petition disposal within two months.

Muhammed Farook Vs Noushida — Child Custody and Guardianship | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

¶4

& THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶5

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/29TH MAGHA 1934

¶6

OP (FC).No. 469 of 2013 (R) --------------------------OP(G&W) NO.675/2011 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

MUHAMMED FAROOK, AGED 36 YEARS, AMBALATHUVEETTIL HOUSE, KECHERI P.O., ERANELLOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENON SMT.MEERA V.MENON SRI.MAHESH V.MENON

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

NOUSHIDA, PUTHUKKUDI VEEDU, SOOFI BAZAR, PARAPPOOR POST, KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM - 676503

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN

¶13

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

OP (FC).No. 469 of 2013 (R)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'(S) EXHIBITS:

¶17

EXT.P1	COPY OF PETITION IN OP(GW) NO.675/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM.
EXT.P2	COPY OF COUNTER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN THE ABOVE CASE BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM.
EXT.P3	COPY OF DEPOSITION GIVEN BY THE RESPONDENT AS RW1 OP NO.675/2011.
EXT.P4	COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY NOUSHAD TO THE SECRETARY PALAPPURAM MAHAL COMMITTEE, MALAPPURAM.
EXT.P5	COPY OF ORDER IN LA NO.2020/2012 IN OP NO.675/2011 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM.

¶18

RESPONDENT'(S) EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

BKA

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE

¶23

¶24

P. D. RAJAN, JJ.

¶25

OP (FC) No. 469 of 2013

¶26

-------------------------------------------------Dated this the 18^th day of February, 2013

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

¶29

Under challenge in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is Ext.P5 order passed by the Family Court, Malappuram.

¶30

Ext.P5 is passed by the court in IA No.2020/2012 in OP No.675/2011. The OP is filed by the petitioner, who is the former husband of the respondent, seeking permanent custody of the minor children. The IA was filed by the petitioner for summoning the 'thalaq nama' pronounced by the present husband of the respondent and also for examining the Secretary of the Mahal Committee with whom the 'thalaq nama' was filed. The learned Family Court dismissed the IA for two reasons; (1) the document sought to be produced is not at all relevant for deciding the case where the issue is one of custody of minors; (2) the

¶31

OP (FC) No. 469 of 2013

¶32

..2..

¶33

application is highly belated.

¶34

According to Sri. Mahesh V. Menon, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 'thalaq' pronounced by the respondent's present husband is very much relevant in deciding the case in the light of the respondent's version in the witness box that it is her pr esent husband who has to provide requisite funds to her for maintaining the two children. If the marriage between the respondent and her second husband is already divorced by pronouncing 'thalaq', there will have nobody to support the two minor children.

¶35

We find some force in the submission of Sri.Mahesh regarding the relevance of the 'thalaq nama'. At the same time, we notice that the application was filed by the petitioner at the fag-end of the trial.

¶36

Sri.P.P.Ramachandran, the learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the respondent has no information regarding the 'thalaq' allegedly pronounced by her present husband. According to the respondent, she and her children are now being properly maintained by her

¶37

..3..

¶38

OP (FC) No. 469 of 2013

¶39

present husband. Sri.Ramachandran further submitted that the respondent should be properly compensated for the delay in the matter of filing the IA.

¶40

Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar, we are of the view that the impugned order can be set aside and IA No.2020/2012 can be allowed imposing proper conditions. Accordingly, we allow the original petition issuing the following directions;

¶41

The impugned order will stand set aside and IA No.2020/2012 will stand allowed subject to the following conditions;

¶42

1.The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.6,250/- (Rupees six thousand two hundred and fifty only) before the Family Court, Malappuram, for payment to the respondent within a period of one month from today towards arrears of interim maintenance due to the respondent.

¶43

2.The petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the respondent as cost. This payment can be made either directly or through the respondent's

¶44

..4..

¶45

OP (FC) No. 469 of 2013

¶46

counsel in this Court within a period of two weeks from

¶47

today and produce receipt before the court below.

¶48

Once this order becomes operative by the appellant

¶49

complying with the two conditions noted herein, the Family Court, Malappuram, will issue summons as prayed for and will post the original petition for further evidence. Summons will be issued for production of the document and for examination of the additional witness. The matter should be expedited by the Family Court, which will ensure that the main original petition itself is disposed of, at any rate, within a period of two months from today.

¶50

The original petition is disposed of as above.

¶51

Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.

¶52

Sd/- P. D. RAJAN, JUDGE.

¶53

bka/-

Muhammed Farook v. Noushida

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Farook v. Noushida

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

Sethu G.Nair Vs v.P.Sandhya

Sheeja Vs Sajeev

John Vinith Domnic Vs the Circle Inspector of Police

Pradeep Kumar K.S. Vs Deepa A.H

Thankappan Nair Vs B.Prasannakumari

Suma.P.Mallan Vs Sreekanth S.Mallia