Dismissed

P. Kesavan v. the Union of India

Kerala HC12 Feb 2013OP (FC)/513/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This original petition challenged an order dismissing an application to restrain a post office from relaying family pension to the applicant's alleged wife. The High Court upheld the dismissal, affirming that marriage certificates enjoy presumptions and noting lack of prima facie case for injunction. The Court directed the Family Court to expedite the main civil trial.

What did the court decide?

The original petition assailing the Family Court's order was dismissed. The petitioner was directed to expedite the main suit disposal within four months.

P. Kesavan Vs the Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | 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

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/23RD MAGHA 1934

¶6

OP (FC).No. 513 of 2013 (R)

¶7

I.A. No.1843/2012 in OP.772/2012 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM

¶8

PETITIONER(S): -

¶9

P. KESAVAN AGED 71 YEARS S/O. APPU NAIR, PANAT HOUSE, TRIPANGODE AMSOM DESOM TRIPANGODE P.O. - 676 108, TIRUR TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): -

¶12

THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶13

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE TIRUR DIVISION, TIRUR - 676 101.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR OF POSTAL ACCOUNTS (KERALA) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶15

THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL KERALA KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTS, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI- 110 001.

¶17

POTTUVALAPPIL THANKAMANI,. D/O. SANKARAN NAIR, SREENILAYAM, PORATHOOR AMSOM PUTHUPALLY DESOM, PUTHUAPLLY P.O - 676 102 TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶18

R1-R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA R6 BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE R6 BY ADV. SMT.N.DEEPA R6 BY ADV. SRI.V.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶19

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-022013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

OP (FC) No. 513/2013

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXHIBIT-P1-TRUE COPY OF THE SUIT (LATER REPRESENTED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM) NUMBERED AS O.P 772/2012 DATED 15/06/2012.

¶24

EXHIBIT-P2-TRUE COPY OF THE IA 1843/2012 IN O.P 772/2012 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM DATED 20/09/2012.

¶25

EXHIBIT-P3-TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXHIIBT-P4-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22/01/2013 I.A 1843/2012 IN O.P 772/2012 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM.

¶27

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P.D. RAJAN, JJ.

¶28

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

¶29

O.P.(FC) No. 513 of 2013

¶30

======================= Dated this the 12^th day of February, 2013

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

¶33

Challenge in this original petition filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.1843/2012 in O.P.No.772/2012 on the file of the Family Court, Malappuram is the order passed by the Family Court in the above I.A., which was filed by the petitioner seeking temporary injunction restraining the Union of India and authorities of the Department of Posts from disbursing family pension to the 6^th respondent who claims to be a legally wedded wife of late P. Unnikrishnan. The main relief which is sought by the petitioner who is the brother of late P. Unnikrishnan is for a declaration that the marriage claimed by the 6^th respondent between her and Unnikrishnan is null and void and also for injuncting the official respondents from releasing the family pension and other retiral benefits due on account of deceased Unnikrishnan to the 6^th respondent. The Family Court

¶34

OPFC 513/2013 2

¶35

considering the evidence placed on record consisting of Exts.A1 to A5 on the side of the petitioner and Exts.B1 to B4 on the side of the 6^th respondent came to the conclusion that the petitioner was unsuccessful in making out a prima facie case for the grant of temporary injunction. It was also found that balance of convenience was not found in favour of the 6^th respondent. Accordingly, the I. A. was dismissed. In this O.P. the impugned order, which is produced as Ext.P4, is assailed on various grounds.

¶36

Heard Shri Jamsheed Hafiz, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Deepa N., the learned counsel for the 6^th respondent.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no such marriage took place and that the marriage was not witnessed by any family member of Unnikrishnan has not been taken note of by the Family Court. It is also submitted that the 6^th respondent does not have a case that she and late Unnikrishnan live together at least for one day after their marriage. As regards the certificate of marriage

¶38

OPFC 513/2013 3

¶39

issued by the Local Registrar of Marriages (Common), Triprangode Grama Panchayat, the learned counsel for the petitioner would draw our attention to a document produced on the side of the petitioner before the Family Court indicating on the date of the submission of the application for registration the 6^th respondent attended her duties as a Branch Post Master. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned order on various reasons. She drew our attention Ext.A5 certificate of marriage issued by the Local Registrar which was challenged by the petitioner before the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. The challenge was turned down as per Ext.A5 order in the I.A.. Ext.A5 has become final, according to the learned counsel. The learned counsel also submitted that Ext.A5 is an interim order and cannot have any legitimate grievance regarding the same.

¶40

Having given our anxious consideration on the rival submissions at the Bar and having carefully gone through Ext.A5 order and having made a quick survey of the

¶41

OPFC 513/2013 4

¶42

documents produced by the parties, question that arises for consideration is Ext.P4 order is vitiated to the extent of justifying interference by us under Article 227 of the Constitution. That question, in our view, can be answered only in negative.

¶43

The marriage certificate relied on by the 6^th respondent is issued to her by a statutory authority in discharge of that authority's statutory function. According to us, the same enjoys certain presumptions regarding irregularity in the matter of the issuance. It is for the petitioner to rebut the above presumption by adducing cogent evidence. The 6^th respondent is admittedly working as a Branch Post Master. The petitioner cannot raise a rival claim to the pension which is now permitted to be released to the 6^th respondent. According to us, the court below was correct in its view that no prima facie case is made out by the petitioner for injuncting the 6^th respondent from receiving the pension.

¶44

Having gauged Ext.P4 by the parameters

¶45

OPFC 513/2013 5

¶46

applicable to the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction, we notice that Ext.P4 cannot be said to be an order passed without jurisdiction. It is not an order which offends a clear provision of law either statutory or settled. It is not an order which can be described as a perverse order in the sense that such an order will not be authored by any person having reasonable knowledge and training in law. In short, Ext.P4 is not an order liable to be interfered with. We approve the same and dismiss the O.P.

¶47

However, there will be a direction to the Family Court to expedite the trial of the O.P. and dispose of the same in accordance with law, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties, at the earliest and at any rate within four months of receiving a copy of this judgment Final decision in the O.P. shall not be influenced by Ext.P4 and the observations made by us. Findings entered by Ext.P4 should be treated as a provisional findings entered for the purpose of deciding Ext.P4 only. We direct the 6^th respondent to give an undertaking to the court below that in

¶48

OPFC 513/2013

¶49

¶50

case the O.P. is finally decided against her and it is found that she is not eligible for pension released to her on the strength of Ext.P4, she shall deposit the pension amount released to her before the court below without fail. Subject to the filing of such an undertaking, we approve Ext.P4.

¶51

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.

¶52

P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.

¶53

nkm.

P. Kesavan v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Kesavan v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumaran Nair Vs M.S.Manju & Another

Renjith Kumar B. Vs Girija Devi

M.G.Vipin and Others Vs Rejitha N.K.Nair

Abdul Hakkim Vs Febitha

M.Haneefa Vs Naseema K.P.

Susheela Vs P.Premachandran