Dismissed

Riyas M. v. Anjuman Habeeb

Kerala HC13 Jun 2016OP (FC)/275/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of an original petition challenging the Family Court's rejection of a joint trial application. The Family Court denied the joint trial of three matrimonial cases pending before it, citing practical difficulties and existing directions to finalize one matter within four months. The high court held the Family Court justified in its refusal and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Riyas M. Vs Anjuman Habeeb — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶6

MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/23RD JYAISHTA, 1938

¶7

OP (FC).No. 275 of 2016 (R)

¶8

PETITIONER / PETITIONER : -

¶9

RIYAS M., S/O.MOHAMMED SALIH, ELANKATHIL HOUSE, ELIPPAKULAM PO, PALLIKKAL VIA, ALAPPUZHA.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF SRI.K.PAUL KURIAKOSE

¶11

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT : -

¶12

ANJUMAN HABEEB, D/O.HABEEB RAHMAN, FLAT NO.222, 5TH FLOOR, HAPPY HOMES, OPP. CEPZ, KAKKANAD, KOCHI 682030.

¶13

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

OP (FC).No. 275 of 2016 (R)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : -

¶17

EXHIBIT P1 : PHOTOSTAT TRUE COPY OF MC.NO. 148/2013 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT ON 18.05.2013 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶18

EXHIBIT P2 : PHOTOSTAT TRUE COPY OF OP.NO. 924/2013 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT ON 18.05.2013 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶19

EXHIBIT P3 : PHOTOSTAT TRUE COPY OF OP.NO.2186 OF 2014 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT ON 17.11.2014 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶20

EXHIBIT P4 : PHOTOSTAT TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN MC.NO. 148/2013 FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶21

EXHIBIT P5 : PHOTOSTAT TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND HIS PARENTS IN OP.NO. 924/2013 FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶22

EXHIBIT P6 : PHOTOSTAT TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OP.NO. 2186/2014 FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶23

EXHIBIT P7 : PHOTOSTAT TRUE COPY OF IA.NO. 798/2016 IN OP.NO. 2186/2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER SEEKING JOINT TRIAL.

¶24

EXHIBIT P8 : PHOTOSTAT TRUE COPY OF OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE RESPONDENT TO IA.NO. 798/2016 IN OP.NO. 2186/2014.

¶25

EXHIBIT P9 : PHOTOSTAT TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26.05.2016 IN IA.NO. 798/2016 IN OP.NO. 2186/2014.

¶26

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : - NIL.

// TRUE COPY //

P.A. TO JUDGE

DMR/-

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶31

¶32

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ.

¶33

¶34

O.P. (F.C.) No. 275 of 2016

¶35

Dated this the 13^th day of June, 2016

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶38

The petitioner is aggrieved of Exhibit P9 order passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam, in I.A. No.798/2016 in O.P. No.2186/2014, whereby the application preferred for joint trial of O.P.No.2186/2014 along with M.C. No.148/13 (preferred for maintenance by the respondent) and O.P. No.924/2013 (preferred by the respondent claiming return of gold articles and such other things) came to be dismissed as 'not practicable', in view of the direction already given by

¶39

this Court with regard to the course of action to be pursued.

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length.

¶41

The sequence of events reveals that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent took place on 24.6.2012. Shortly thereafter, estrangement occurred, which, according to the parties, went beyond the repairable

¶42

O.P. (F.C.) No. 275 of 2016 2

¶43

limits, when the respondent approached the Family Court, Ernakulam, by filing O.P. No.924/2013 for return of the gold articles and such other things as mentioned above. She also filed M.C. No.148/2013 claiming maintenance. The respondent filed O.P. No.2186/2014 as well, seeking for divorce.

¶44

Earlier, the O.P. filed by the respondent for divorce came to be decided ex parte on 3.10.2015, dissolving the marital bond. The petitioner moved the Family Court by filing I.A. No.4297/2015, seeking to have the ex parte order set aside. This was considered and allowed by the Family Court; which was sought to be challenged by the respondent by filing O.P.(FC) No.91/2016 before this Court. Interference was declined and the O.P. was dismissed in liminie . However, the Family Court was directed to dispose of O.P. No.2186/2014 at the earliest, at any rate, within 'four months' from the date of receipt of a coy of the judgment. Pursuant to the above verdict, the matter was being proceeded further by the Family Court. In the meanwhile, the petitioner filed I.A. No.798/2016 seeking 'joint trial' of all the three matters. This was considered and

¶45

O.P. (F.C.) No. 275 of 2016

¶46

¶47

rejected by the Family Court as aforesaid vide Exhibit P9 order, which in turn is under challenge in this original petition.

¶48

The thrust of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, much loss and hardship will be caused to the petitioner because of the multiple proceedings being pursued separately. The cause of action relates to the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent and all other issues are in relation to the rupture of the marital bond. It is stated that the pleadings are common and the witnesses to be cited and examined are also almost the same. The learned counsel submits that the pleadings are complete and the parties have entered appearance in all the three matters. It was in the said circumstance, that joint trial was sought for. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel that the O.P. filed by the respondent before this Court came to be disposed of at 'admission' stage itself, declining interference; but a direction was given to have the matter finalized within 'four months' and as such, the necessity to have 'joint trial' of all the three matters could not be brought to the notice of this

¶49

O.P. (F.C.) No. 275 of 2016

¶50

¶51

Court by the petitioner herein. The pendency of the other matters was not brought to the notice of learned Judges when the matters were disposed of, by the respondent.

¶52

On going through the proceeding, it is seen there is no serious dispute with regard to the factual sequence. The respondent had filed an objection to the I.A. for joint trial, wherein it was stated that the attempt of the petitioner in the I.A. was only to protract the trial. It is also stated that warrant is pending against the respondent in the M.C. (petitioner herein) as he had not paid any maintenance as ordered by the Court, which version is sought to be rebutted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, stating that the warrant was subsequently withdrawn. It was also pointed out that the pre-trail steps in respect of the O.P. No.924/2013 had not been completed.

¶53

This Court does not find it necessary to go into any

¶54

factual aspects and the scope of scrutiny is confined to the circumstances under which Exhibit P9 order was passed by the Family Court. The only reason stated is that, it was 'not practicable' for the Court to accede to the request made by the petitioner for 'joint trial', because of the steps to be

¶55

O.P. (F.C.) No. 275 of 2016

¶56

¶57

completed in connection with O.P. No.924/2013; more so when the direction given by the High Court was to finalize O.P. No.2186/2014 within 'four months', as per the verdict dated 03.03.2016. Copy of the said judgment is not made available for perusal of this Court. However, there is no dispute to the fact that such a direction was given by another Bench of this Court, whereby the O.P. No.2186/2014 pending before the Family Court was directed to be finalized within four months. If this be the position, if at all joint trail was to be ordered, it was for the petitioner to have the time limit extended by way of appropriate proceedings, either by way of review or by filing a petition for extension of time or such other appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. In so far as the direction given by this Court to have the matter finalized within four months' time stands, the Family Court was perfectly justified in having passed Exhibit P9 order. This Court does not find anything wrong, irregular or improper with regard to the course pursued by the Family Court. Interference is declined and the O.P. is dismissed.

¶58

O.P. (F.C.) No. 275 of 2016

¶59

¶60

It is made clear that, dismissal of this O.P. will not bar the way of the petitioner in pursuing other appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, to get the grievance redressed.

¶61

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶62

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶63

DMR/-

Riyas M. v. Anjuman Habeeb

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Riyas M. v. Anjuman Habeeb

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonia Viswam Vs State of Kerala

S.M.Shefeek Vs State of Kerala

Sushama.K Vs State of Kerala

Shabu Vs Anju

The Administrator Vs T.Cheriya Koya

Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission Vs Ashalekshmi