Disposed

S.Janaki @ Janaki Nayar v. S.Madhusoodhanan Nair

Kerala HC4 Sept 2018OP (FC)/464/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of an original petition invoking Article 227 jurisdiction seeking early disposal of a pending matrimonial suit. Noting the parties were senior citizens and the lower court had huge pendency, the court directed the Family Court to take earnest efforts to dispose of the case at the earliest.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to take all earnest efforts to dispose of OP No.1295/2017 at the earliest considering the parties are senior citizens.

S.Janaki @ Janaki Nayar Vs S.Madhusoodhanan Nair — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶6

TUESDAY ,THE 04TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 13TH BHADRA, 1940

¶7

OP (FC).No. 464 of 2018

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

S.JANAKI @ JANAKI NAYAR

¶10

AGED 64 YEARS, W/O. S. MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR, RUA IPEROIG, 749, APARTMENT 72, SAO PAULO 05016-000, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT TC 15/508, KANNATHIDATH HOUSE, U.S. ROAD, SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE

¶12

RESPONDENT:

¶13

S.MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR,

¶14

AGED 73 YEARS, S/O. SREEDHARAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT AV 9 DE JULHO, 2054, APARTMENT, 82 BELA VISTA, SAO PAULO SP CEP:01312-000 BRAZIL.

¶15

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

AMG

¶17

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. & R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J.

¶18

O.P. (FC) No. 464 OF 2018

¶19

DATED THIS THE 4^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

Abdul Rehim, J:

¶22

Limited relief sought for in this original petition, filed by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested on this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is for a direction for an early disposal of O.P. (HMA) No.1295/2017 pending before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. In

¶23

view of the nature of the relief proposed through this judgment, issuance of notice to the respondent is dispensed with. Hence the case is disposed of at the stage of its admission itself.

¶24

The petitioner is a lady aged 64 years. The respondent, her husband, is now aged 73 years. Their marriage took place long back on 03-09-1972. It is stated that, the marital relationship between the parties remains irretrievably broken and they are living separated. The

¶25

OP (FC) No. 464/2018 -3-

¶26

original petition was filed by the petitioner on 03-07-2017 seeking for dissolution of the marriage. According to the petitioner, the respondent received notice; but failed to appear on that date of posting. But the court issued fresh notice and posted the case to 27-02-2018. According to the petitioner, the respondent had filed vakkalath through a counsel, on 06-12-2017. But the court below had adjourned the case from 27-02-2018 to 12-06-2018 and again to 29-092018. It is contended that, considering the age of the parties, it is necessary to expedite the proceedings for an early disposal of the matter. Hence the petitioner is approaching this court.

¶27

This court directed the Registry to obtain a report from the Family Court regarding the present stage of the case. In a report filed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, dated 20-08-2018, it is mentioned that, the case was earlier posted for return of notice on 07-11-2017 and notice was not served on the respondent.

¶28

The process was repeated on 27-02-2018 and on 12-062018. Now the case stands posted to 29-09-2018 and on a

¶29

OP (FC) No. 464/2018 -4-

¶30

perusal of the records it was noticed that service to the respondent remain complete.

¶31

Eventhough learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent appeared through counsel on earlier occasion, there is no materials to find that the report submitted by the learned Judge, Family Court is in any manner incorrect. It is stated in the report of the learned Judge of the Family Court that, there is a huge pendency of 6,666 cases in that court, which includes 6 + years old cases. Further it is mentioned that, there are directions issued from this court for time bound disposal of several cases. Considering the fact that the case at hand is comparatively new one, the Family Court had expressed the hope that it can be disposed of within a period of one year, after appearance of the respondent.

¶32

We take note of the fact that the case filed by the petitioner before the Family Court is only at the stage of appearance of the parties. Direction for time bound disposal cannot be issued, because that will cause prejudice to the parties in other cases who are waiting for disposal of their

¶33

OP (FC) No. 464/2018

¶34

-5-

¶35

cases since the last more than 6 years. However, it is left open to the petitioner to approach the Family Court to declare the respondent ex-parte, if he fails to appear on the posting date of the case. It is also left open to the petitioner to approach that court for an early disposal of the case, on the fact that both the parties are senior citizens.

¶36

Under the above mentioned circumstances, the original petition is hereby disposed of by directing the Family Court, Thriuvananthapuram to take all earnest efforts to dispose of OP No.1295/2017 at the earliest, especially taking note of the fact that both the parties in the case are senior citizens.

Sd/-

C.K.ABDUL REHIM

JUDGE

Sd/-

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

AMG

¶44

OP (FC) No. 464/2018

¶45

-6-

¶46

APPENDIX

¶47

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶48

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF O.P.(HMA)NO.1295/2017 FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶49

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

¶50

NIL

¶51

AMG

S.Janaki @ Janaki Nayar v. S.Madhusoodhanan Nair

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Janaki @ Janaki Nayar v. S.Madhusoodhanan 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

Binu Baby Vs Suja

Bipin C.R. Vs Meera D.S.

Piyoosh A.J Vs Balram

Xevi Joseph Alias Xavy Joseph Vs Nisha

T.Sheeja Vs C.P Balakrishnan

Biju Philipose Vs State of Kerala