Disposed

Rajeswari v. Arun

Kerala HC21 Feb 2017OP (FC)/24/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a petition challenging a lower court order rejecting interim maintenance because the underlying maintenance suit was dismissed for default. The court directed that if the suit is restored, a fresh application can be filed without being affected by the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The petition is disposed of; liberty granted to file a fresh application in the lower court if the suit is restored.

Rajeswari Vs Arun — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/2ND PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

OP (FC).No. 24 of 2017 (R)

¶6

--------------------------I.A.NO.574/2016 IN OP.NO.256/2014 OF FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

1. RAJESWARY, AGED 23 YEARS, D/O.RAJAN, ODUNGATTUPALLIYAL (ATTILAMPARA), VADANAMKURUSSI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

2. ADITH (MINOR), 2ND PEITIONER REPRESENTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER, MOTHER AND GUARDIAN.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM

¶11

RESPONDENT :

¶12

ARUN, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.HARIDAS, KAKKADATH VEEDU, MUKKATTUPARAMB, PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN: 679 303.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.R.SREEHARI SRI.SACHIN VYAS

¶14

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

sts

¶16

OP (FC).No. 24 of 2017 (R)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN OP NO.256/2014, ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM

¶20

EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN O.P NO.256/2014, ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM

¶21

EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.A NO.574/2016 IN OP NO.256/2014, ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM.

¶22

EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT IN IA NO.574/2016 IN O.P NO.256/2014, ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM

¶23

EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/11/2016 IN I.A NO.574/2016 O.P NO.256/2014, ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, OTTAPALAM

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J &

¶30

**K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** O.P.(F.C.) No.24 of 2017

¶31

Dated this the 21^st day of February 2017

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

Ramakrishnan, J

¶34

This original petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P5 order passed by the court below in I.A.No.574/2016 in O.P.No.256/2014 of the Family Court, Ottappalam. The 1^st petitioner herein filed O.P.No.256/2014 for return of gold ornaments and past and future maintenance. In that proceedings, the petitioners filed I.A.No.574/2016 seeking interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,000/- to the first petitioner, Rs.3,000/- to the 2^nd petitioner and also for Rs.10,000/- for litigation expenses.

¶35

The respondent entered appearance and filed counter statement contending that the 1^st petitioner is living in adultery and therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance at all. It is further contended that the 1^st petitioner is doing tailoring work and getting Rs.4,000/- per month.

¶36

O.P.(F.C) No.24/2017

¶37

¶38

The court below, after considering the submissions of both parties, rejected the claim for interim maintenance for the 1^st petitioner and litigation expenses and granted interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month to the 2^nd petitioner from the date of the petition i.e. 21/04/2016 till the disposal of O.P.No.256/2014. Dissatisfied with the rejection of the claim, the present original petition has been filed.

¶39

When the original petition came up for hearing today, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that O.P.No.256/2014 of Family Court, Ottappalam was dismissed for default on 13/02/2017. Since the original petition has already been disposed of, this Court feels that it is not necessary to go into the legality of the orders passed by the court below in these proceedings. If the original petition before the court below is restored to file, petitioner is at liberty to file fresh application, if so advised and the court below is at liberty to consider and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, in that application, untrammeled by the observation made in the impugned order.

¶40

O.P.(F.C) No.24/2017

¶41

¶42

With the above observation and direction, this original

¶43

petition is disposed of.

¶44

(sd/-)

¶45

(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶46

(sd/-)

¶47

(K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)

¶48

jsr

Rajeswari v. Arun

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeswari v. Arun

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

Joseph @ Noby Joseph Mathew Vs Mariam @ Jyothi Poikayil Jose

Biju Mathew(Varkey) Vs Prasheelda(Shiny)

Boban Joseph & Others Vs Ashly Eapen

S.Sreekumar Vs Manu Thankappan

Rajasree Vs Ramesan

Rameshkumar Vs Bindu