Disposed

Geethu.N v. D. Mohandas

Kerala HC3 Oct 2018OP (FC)/470/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a petition seeking direction for expeditious disposal of a pending family suit regarding marriage expenses and performance of Kanyadanam. It held that the lower court petition was not ripe for trial due to incomplete pleadings and refused to issue a time-bound disposal direction without specific urgency.

What did the court decide?

Original Petition disposed. No direction for time-bound disposal issued. Liberty reserved for petitioner to file interim applications.

Geethu.N Vs D. Mohandas — Civil Procedure and Limitation | 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

WEDNESDAY,THE 03RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 11TH ASWINA, 1940

¶7

OP (FC).No. 470 of 2018

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 377/2018 of FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

GEETHU.N AGED 22 YEARS D/O MOHANDAS, RESIDING AT PARAYIL KIZHAKKETHIL, IKKADU MURI, KODUMON VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN SRI.M.KIRANLAL SRI.R.RAJESH SRI.T.S.SARATH

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

D. MOHANDAS AGED 57 YEARS S/O CHELLAPPAN, RESIDING AT THUNDITHARA HOUSE, KAPPIL EAST MURI, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690533

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.D.FEROZE SRI.K.ANAND SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN SRI.V.VINAY

¶15

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

OP (FC).No. 470 of 2018 2

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J.

¶19

The limited relief sought for in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to direct the Family Court, Pathanamthitta to have an expeditious disposal of O.P No.377/18 filed by the petitioner against the respondent herein. The Original Petition before the Family Court was filed for realisation of an amount of 9,79,336/-₹ towards the marriage expenses. The petitioner is also seeking a mandatory injunction against the respondent, for directing him to take initiative, supervise and perform the 'Kanyadanam' ceremony in connection with the marriage of the petitioner.

¶20

Ext.P1 is the copy of the original petition filed by the petitioner before the family court. Evidently, the said case was filed only on 20.04.2018. In a report submitted by the learned Judge of the Family Court, Pathanamthitta it is mentioned that, the respondent had appeared in the case and it now stands posted to 26.10.2018, for filing objections/counter of the respondent. According to the petitioner, mediation was already conducted in the said case, which failed and the said fact was intimated to the court. Apprehension of the petitioner is that, the respondent may purposefully protract the case in order to

¶21

OP (FC).No. 470 of 2018 3

¶22

defeat the interest of the petitioner. It is stated that, marriage of the petitioner is fixed to 2/12/18. Therefore the petitioner is seeking the relief as mentioned above.

¶23

In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent it is mentioned that, the respondent is a person having Chronic liver disease and was also affected with a stroke. He is under constant medical care and treatment at various hospitals. He has to incur heavy expenditure in connection with the treatment. According to the respondent, it is only with an intention to harass him at his old age and illness, that the petitioner had approached the Family Court with the above Original Petition.

¶24

In the report submitted by the learned Judge of the Family Court, it is mentioned that, the case in question stands now posted for filing the counter. It is pointed out that, 1,150 cases are included in the targeted list for disposal of that court before 31/1/2019.

¶25

We take note of the fact that, the original petition before the family court is not ripe for trial, because the pleadings are not complete. If the petitioner has got any urgency in the matter, it is for her to approach the said court in that respect, if necessary by advancing the posting of the case. It is also left open to her to file appropriate interim application, to the extent maintainable, for payment of the marriage expenses, provisional. We do not think it appropriate to issue any direction for a time bound disposal of the above original petition, in the

¶26

OP (FC).No. 470 of 2018 4

¶27

wake of the situation mentioned as above, especially in a case were the pleadings are not complete. However, if the petitioner approaches the court with any application as mentioned above, that court shall take note of the same and shall take appropriate steps for an expeditious disposal of the case .

¶28

The above original petition is disposed of subject to the observations contained hereinabove and subject to liberty reserved in favour of the petitioner to take appropriate steps before the Family Court.

Sd/-

C.K.ABDUL REHIM

JUDGE

Sd/-

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI JUDGE

¶34

msp

¶35

OP (FC).No. 470 of 2018 5

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶38

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.NO.377/2018 ON THE FILES OF LEARNED FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MUHURTHA KURIPPADI OF THE PETITIONER'S MARRIAGE

¶39

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 12.08.2008 EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 19.06.2018, ISSUED BY GOVT.HOSPITAL, KAYAMKULAM.

¶41

//True Copy// P.A. to Judge

¶42

MSP

Geethu.N v. D. Mohandas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geethu.N v. D. Mohandas

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

Mritun Jaykumar Saha Vs Anupama Devi Ponnaiyan

Niyas Ashraf Vs State of Kerala

Remya Babu Vs Bibi Varghese

Rashid Abdul Razak Vs the Director General of Police

Salam Vs Dr. Shyla

Sumesh S., Vs State of Kerala