Partly allowed

Preetha S. v. Somanathan Nair

Kerala HC1 Nov 2017WP(C)/6131/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order of the Maintenance Tribunal for procedural irregularities, including lack of proper notice and hearing to the petitioners. The court remitted the matter back to the Tribunal with a condition requiring the petitioners to pay Rs.5,000/- each to the father.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; petitioners directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- each to father and appear before Tribunal for fresh disposal.

Preetha S. Vs Somanathan Nair — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/10TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 6131 of 2017 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. PREETHA S. W/O. RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 37 YEARS, PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, PERINGODU P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT 402, TUKARAM PALACE, DOMBIVALI WEST, THANE DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA STATE.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.SUNNY MATHEW SRI.C.C.ANOOP

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. SOMANATHAN NAIR, PARANKAMOOTTIL HOUSE, PULLEPRAM, RANNI P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT C/O. M.P.JOSEPH, MALLEPPALLY HOUSE, RANNI P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 672.

¶11

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.

¶12

R1 BY ADV. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI B.VINOD

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-11-2017,ALONG WITH WPC 20312/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

K.V.

¶15

WP(C).No. 6131 of 2017 (N)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' --------------	EXHIBITS ---------
P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.6.2016 PASSED BY THE MAINENANCE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVALLA.
P2	TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.12.2016 HAVING PROCEEDINGS NO. B3-27979/2016 PASSED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATHANAMTHITTA.
RESPONDENT(S)' --------------	EXHIBITS ---------
R1(A)	THE TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED TO ME UNDER NATIONAL TUBERCULOSIS CONTROL PROGRAMME.
R2(B)	THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 29.6.2017 ISSUED BY DR. JOHN PHILIP, TALUK HEAD QUARTERS HOSPITAL RANNI.
R2(C)	THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION UNMBERED AS B4-1979/16 SEEKING MAINTENANCE BEFORE MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVALLA.
	/TRUE COPY/
K.V.	P.S.TO JUDGE

¶18

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶19

W.P.(C) Nos. 6131 & 20312 of 2017 (L)

¶20

Dated: 01^st November, 2017

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

The petitioners are aggrieved with the order passed by the Maintenance Tribunal produced at Ext.P1 in both the writ petitions. The petitioners are admittedly the daughters of the respondent, who had filed complaint before the Maintenance Tribunal.

¶23

The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6131/2017 contended that a lawyer was engaged and was directed to seek time to file a counter. However, without permitting any time, the Tribunal passed the impugned order. As far as the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.20312/2017 is concerned, the claim of the petitioner is that notice was not received by her. A report was called for from the Maintenance Tribunal. The Tribunal

¶24

W.P.(C) Nos. 6131 & 20312/2017

¶25

-2-

¶26

has indicated that there is no vakalath seen in the records. However, the order shows that there is a lawyer's presence recorded. In such circumstance, the chances are that the lawyer had represented one of the daughters and had sought time for counter. With respect to the other daughter, it is categorically stated that there is no receipt of notice by the said person.

¶27

The learned Counsel for the respondent argues that the mere fact that the Maintenance Tribunal did not follow the procedure, should not prejudice him insofar as the respondent having been rendered impecunious and being at the mercy of a third party.

¶28

The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that both of them are not employed and that the respondent had sold a residential property and there is sufficient money available in the Bank to carry

¶29

W.P.(C) Nos. 6131 & 20312/2017

¶30

-3-

¶31

on his life.

¶32

In any event, considering the fact that both the petitioners were not heard by the Maintenance Tribunal, the impugned order is set aside on condition of the petitioners paying an amount of Rs.5,000/- each to the father. The petitioners and the respondent shall appear before the Maintenance Tribunal on 23.11.2017. Any objections shall be filed before that date. The matter shall be disposed of within a period of two months from 23.11.2017.

¶33

The writ petitions are disposed of. No Costs.

¶34

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶35

jjj 1/11/17

Preetha S. v. Somanathan Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Preetha S. v. Somanathan Nair

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

Social Service Organization Feroke Town Vs Jasitha P

Sojimon Xavier Vs the District Collector

Chakkochan Vs State of Kerala

Smt.Sreelatha Vs the District Collector, Collectorate, Pathanamthitta District

Sukumaran.M.K Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Headed Systems (India) Ltd. Vs Spices Board