Dismissed

Chandramathi v. Sasikumar

Kerala HC4 Mar 2015OP(Crl.)/77/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus under Article 227 for directions to procure respondent's presence in execution of a maintenance order. The court held such writ cannot be issued under Article 227 and closed the petition, allowing parties to approach the High Court for appropriate directions instead.

What did the court decide?

The Original Petition is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to bring a proper application for appropriate directions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Chandramathi Vs Sasikumar — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/13TH PHALGUNA, 1936

¶5

OP(Crl.).No. 77 of 2015 (Q)

¶6

AGAINST C.M.P NO.89/2013 IN M.C NO.135/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:

¶8

1. CHANDRAMATHI, D/O.JANAKI, RESIDING AT T.C.NO.43/269, LEELA BHAVAN, ERA-55 THOTTAM, MANACAUD P.O, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM NOW RESIDING AT KOOTUMALA, VAYALA P.O, KOTTAYAM.

¶9

2. VINAYAK KUMAR, AGED 15 YEARS, S/O.SASIKUMAR, REPRESENTED BY 1ST PETITIONER RESIDING AT T.C.NO.43/269, LEELA BHAVAN, ERA-55 THOTTAM, MANACAUD P.O, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM NOW RESIDING AT KOOTUMALA VAYALA P.O, KOTTAYAM.

¶10

3. KAILAS KUMAR, AGED 12 YEARS, S/O.SASIKUMAR, REPRESENTED BY 1ST PETITIONER RESIDING AT T.C.NO.43/269, LEELA BHAVAN, ERA-55, THOTTAM, MANACAUD P.O, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM NOW RESIDING AT KOOTUMALA VAYALA P.O, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ

¶11

RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER: --------------------------------

¶12

SASIKUMAR, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN, RESIDING AT T.C.NO.43/269, LEELA BHAVAN, ERA-55, THOTTAM, MANACAUD P.O, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

OP(Crl.).No. 77 of 2015 (Q)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶17

EXT.P1 - COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN M.C.NO.135/2012 DATED 23-4-2013

¶18

EXT.P2 - COPY OF THE CMP NO.89/2013 FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶19

EXT.P3 - COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF O.P(CRL). NO.275/2014

¶20

EXT.P4 - COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P(CRL.)NO.275/2014 DATED 17-12-2014

¶21

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

P.UBAID, J. --------------------------------------O.P(Crl) No.77 of 2015 ---------------------------------------

¶27

Dated this the 4^th day of March, 2015

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

The petitioners herein have obtained a maintenance order from the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram in M.C No.135/2012. They now allege inaction on the part of the learned trial judge in the matter of execution. Ext.P2 is a copy of the execution petition filed before the trial court. It is alleged that inspite of repeated process, the presence of the respondent could not be procured in the execution proceedings. Now they seek a writ of mandamus directing the court below to ensure production of the respondent before the said court. No doubt, such a writ cannot be issued for such a purpose. This is an original petition brought under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Instead of seeking appropriate direction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in exercise of supervisory powers of this Court, the petitioners wrongly seek a writ of mandamus under Article 227

¶30

¶31

O.P(Crl) No.77 of 2015

¶32

of the Constitution of India. This Original Petition can be closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to bring proper proceeding.

¶33

Accordingly, this Original Petition is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to bring a proper application for appropriate directions to the court below under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶34

P.UBAID JUDGE

¶35

Chandramathi v. Sasikumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandramathi v. Sasikumar

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

Hussain Vs State of Kerala

Shaji @ Shajimon Vs State of Kerala

Ruksana Vs State of Kerala

Eldos Mathew Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Mulanthuruthy Police Station

Bindu Kumar B Vs the Excise Inspector

N.a.Abhilash Vs State of Kerala