Partly allowed

Remadevi v. the Public Relation Officer / Manager

Kerala HC12 Mar 2018OP (FC)/122/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala set aside the Family Court's order returning the original petition. It directed the Lower Court to number the petition and decide the validity of the marriage based on evidence, including examination of near relatives.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order of the Family Court returning the original petition; directed the Family Court to number the petition and dispose of it based on evidence.

Remadevi Vs the Public Relation Officer / Manager — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH

¶6

MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1939

¶7

OP (FC).No. 122 of 2018 -----------------------

¶8

IN ORIGINAL SUIT (UNNUMBERED) FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKKARA

¶9

PETITIONER

¶10

REMADEVI, AGED 49 YEARS, W/O. LATE MR.RAJESH A., RESIDING AT KARTHIKA BHAVANAM,PATHIYOOR EAST P.O. OF PATHIYOOR VILLAGE OF ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SMT.V.VIJITHA

¶12

SRI.MANOJ GEORGE

¶13

RESPONDENTS

¶14

THE PUBLIC RELATION OFFICER/MANAGER, CHRISTOS HOSPITAL, 24/228 , KPAC JUNCTION, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA - 690 502.

¶15

THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, KAYAMKULAM BRANCH, HARSHA TOURIST HOME, PUTHIYADAM, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA – 690 502.

¶16

THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, DISTRICT OFFICE, MM BUILDING, CCSB ROAD, NEAR KALLUPALAM, IRON BRIDGE P.O., ALAPPUZHA – 688 001.

¶17

PATHIYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,

¶18

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PATHIYOOR, ALAPPUZHA 690 508.

¶19

BY SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI

¶20

BY SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K. GOPAL, SC, EPFO

¶21

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

OP (FC).No. 122 of 2018 (R)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶25

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION FIELD BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HONOURABLE FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKKARA DATED 31.01.2018 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT MADE BY THE FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKKARA IN EXHIBIT P1 DATED 02.02.2018.

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

¶27

/TRUE COPY/

¶28

P.A. TO JUDGE.

¶29

V. CHITAMBARESH & K.P. JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ.

¶30

OP(FC)No. 122 of 2018

¶31

Dated this the 12^th day of March, 2018

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

Chitambaresh, J.

¶34

Whether the petitioner was legally married by late Rajesh or not is a matter to be decided by the Family Court on the basis of evidence. The near relatives of the petitioner may also have to be examined for the purpose.

¶35

It was not proper for the Family Court to return the original petition filed for a declaration that the marriage is valid and binding and other reliefs. We set aside the order dated 02.02.2018 of the Family Court, Mavelikkara returning the original petition.

¶36

The Family Court shall number the original petition and dispose of the same in accordance with law on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties.

¶37

The Original Petition is disposed of.

¶38

V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE

¶39

K.P. JYOTHINDRANATH JUDGE

¶40

ncd

Remadevi v. the Public Relation Officer / Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Remadevi v. the Public Relation Officer / Manager

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

Rajendran.S.R Vs Nishitha.P

Eby Jackson Vs Commissioner of Police

T.C. Rajendran Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Thalassery