The High Court of Kerala dismissed appeals against an ex parte family court decree awarding dowry and gold value. The court found the family court properly dismissed a guardian appointment application after personal appearance.
The appeal against the family court decree was dismissed along with costs payable by the appellants.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU
THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1939
MAT.APPEAL.NO. 216 OF 2007
--------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP NO.534/2005 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM DATED 08-11-2006
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS
1 KIZHAKKE PURAKKAL KOLAKKAT MUSTHAFA, S/O.MUHAMMED, KIZHAKKEPURAKKAL HOUUSE, VALLIKUNNU AMOSM DESOM, VALLIKUNNU POST, MALAPPURAM DIST. REPRESENTED BY FATHER MOHAMMED.
2 K.P.MUHAMMED, KIZHAKKEPURAKKAL KOLAKKAT HOUSE, PALLKUNNU P.O., VALLIKKUNNU AMSOM, DESOM, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
3 FATHIMA, W/O K.P.MUHAMMED, KIZHAKKEPURAKKAL KOLAKKAT HOUSE, VALLKUNNU POST, VALLIKKUNNU AMSOM, DESOM, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN SRI.K.K.MOHAMMED RAVUF
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
SUMMAYYA M.K., D/O.IMBICHALI, MATHRAMMAL KOLAKKAD KOLAPPURATHU HOUSE, VAZHAYOOR AMSOM, KARUTHARAMBU DESOM, KARAD P.O., FAROOK COLLEGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
:2:
MAT.APPEAL.NO. 216 OF 2007
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
vgd/02.03.18
PA TO JUDGE
K.HARILAL &
A.M.BABU, JJ.
=======================
Mat.Appeal.No.216 of 2007
======================= Dated this the 01st day of March, 2018
JUDGMENT
A.M.BABU, J.
The subject matter of the proceedings before the family court was a matrimonial dispute. The wife sued her husband and his parents for realisation of 1,00,000/alleged to have been paid as dowry and 1,75,000/- as the value of 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments allegedly appropriated by the husband and in-laws. Nobody filed any objection against the claim of the wife. Therefore, accepting her proof-affidavit, the family court granted a decree for `2,75,000/- with 7% interest. The said order and the consequent decree are challenged in the appeal.
Mat.Appeal.No.216 of 2007
2
Nair, the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent respectively.
Mat.Appeal.No.216 of 2007
3
ex parte.
the personal appearance of the 1st appellant in order to conduct such an enquiry. The orders on I.A.No.466/2006 show that on 12.07.2006 the family court heard both sides and directed the appearance of the 1st appellant in person on 03.08.2006. It is seen further that on 03.08.2006 the 1st appellant and his father and mother were present before the family court. The family court recorded the submission of the 1st appellant that he had no illness and that he did not
Mat.Appeal.No.216 of 2007
4
want his father to be his guardian. The family court recorded the submission of the father of the 1st appellant that the 1st appellant could appear and conduct the proceedings all by himself. For these reasons, the family court dismissed I.A.No.466/2006. We do not find any wrong committed by the family court. All that the said court could do were done. Not only the 1st appellant, but the 2nd appellant too told the family court that the 1st appellant was normal and that he could defend the proceedings by himself. It was in such circumstances the family court dismissed I.A.No.466/2006.
Mat.Appeal.No.216 of 2007 5
prolong the proceedings and delay the disposal of the case before the family court. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appellants were given 11 months to file their objection. They did not avail of the opportunity granted to them by the family court. They only wanted to prolong the proceedings. Prolongation cannot be permitted any further. We do not find any merit in the appeal. It deserves only a dismissal. We find no reason
why the costs should not follow the event.
Sd/- K.HARILAL, JUDGE
Sd/- A.M.BABU, JUDGE
vgd/02.03.18
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an ex parte decree against a mentally unsound person can be upset by showing lack of opportunity for enquiry.
Kizhakke Purakkal Kolakkat Mustafa
K.P. Muhammed
K.P. Muhammed
Fathima
Summaya M.K.
K. Harilal
A. M. Babu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
