Disposed

Tony Jose v. Jerin Jose @ Aley

Kerala HC8 Nov 2018OP (FC)/592/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala disposed of a petition seeking directions for expeditious disposal and joint trial of family court cases involving divorce, money return, and custody, directing lower court to give early disposal to the joint trial application first.

What did the court decide?

Directed Family Court to dispose of joint trial application early; evidence recording to proceed only after joint trial application is decided.

Tony Jose Vs Jerin Jose @ Aley — Maintenance and Alimony | 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 T.V.ANILKUMAR

¶6

THURSDAY ,THE 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶7

OP (FC).No. 592 of 2018

¶8

ARISING FROM OP (DIV) 209/2016 of FAMILY COURT, THODUPUZHA

¶9

PETITIONER:

¶10

TONY JOSE AGED 34 YEARS, S/O JOSE, VAZHUTHANAPILLIL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA P.O., NEAR SUB STATION, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SMT.P.PARVATHY SMT.SURYA P SHAJI SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. SRI.U.M.HASSAN SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN

¶12

RESPONDENT:

¶13

JERIN JOSE @ ALEY ALSO KNOWN AS RAINU, AGED 30 YEARS, D/O. KUNJACHAN, THANNIPPARA HOUSE, THRIKKAKARA P.O., KARUMAKKAD BHAGOM, GURUMANDIRAM ROAD, NEAR MODEL ENGINEERING COLLEGE, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

AMG

OP (FC) No.592/2018

-2-

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. & T.V. ANILKUMAR, J.

¶19

OP (FC) No. 592 OF 2018

¶20

DATED THIS THE 8^th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

Abdul Rehim, J:

¶23

Limited reliefs sought for in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to direct the Family Court, Thodupuzha to have an expeditious disposal of O.P. Nos.209/2016, 45/2018 & 105/2018, within a time frame to be fixed by this court. Inter alia, the petitioner seeks direction to the Family Court to dispose of I.A. No.422/2018 filed in O.P. No.209/2016 seeking joint trial of the above said 3 cases. In view of the reliefs proposed through this judgment we are dispensing with issuance of notice to the respondent. Hence the original petition is disposed of at its admission stage itself.

¶24

The petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife, living in an estranged relationship. The respondent filed O.P. No.209/2016 seeking for dissolution of their marriage. She had also filed O.P. No.45/2018 seeking for return of money and other incidental reliefs. When those two cases were pending before the Family Court, Thodupuzha, the petitioner herein filed a case before

¶25

OP (FC) No.592/2018 -3-

¶26

the Family Court, Ernakulam seeking permanent custody of the minor son. The said case was transferred to the Family Court, Thodupuzha and numbered as O.P (G&W) No.105/2018. Allegation of the petitioner is that, the respondent is protracting disposal of the said original petitions through dubious methods. Meanwhile O.P. Nos.209/2016 and 45/2018 became ripe for trial. Therefore the petitioner filed I.A. No.422/2018 in O.P. No.209/2016 seeking for joint trial of all the 3 cases, presumably with a view to avoid conflict in decisions. Grievance of the petitioner is that, the Family Court, Thodupuzha is not disposing I.A. No.422/2018. According to the petitioner, if evidence in the 2 cases are proceeded without considering the joint trial application, that will cause prejudices. Hence the petitioner is seeking the reliefs as mentioned above.

¶27

When the case came up for consideration on 26-10-2018 this court directed the Registry to get a report from the Family Court, Thodupuzha with respect to the present stage of the cases and with respect to the stage of I.A. No.422/2018. It was also requested the Family Court to indicate the maximum time required for disposal of the 3 cases as well as the joint trial application.

¶28

The learned Judge of the Family Court, Thodupuzha had submitted a report pursuant to the above said direction, in which it is mentioned that, all the 3 cases as well as the interim application

¶29

OP (FC) No.592/2018

¶30

-4-

¶31

for joint trial were posted to 07-11-2018. It is also indicated that the cases can be disposed of within a maximum period before the end of January 2019. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on 07-11-2018 the cases were further adjourned. But he is not in a position to submit as to whether the joint trial application was allowed by the court or not.

¶32

Considering the circumstances as mentioned above, we are of the opinion that this original petition can be disposed of by directing the Family Court to have an early disposal of the joint trial petition filed as I.A. No.422/2018 in O.P. No.209/2016, if not already disposed. It is made clear that, recording of the evidence in any one of the cases shall be proceeded only after disposal of the above interim application. If the Family Court allows the joint trial petition, then all earnest endeavour shall be taken to dispose of the cases at the earliest, at any rate, within the time as stipulated in the report. The court below shall insist upon the respondent to complete the pleadings in O.P. No.105/2018, without any further delay, inorder to have an expeditious disposal of the cases at the earliest.

¶33

Sd/C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGE

¶34

Sd/T.V.ANILKUMAR JUDGE

AMG

OP (FC) No.592/2018

-5-

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENTS AS O	DIVORCE PETITION FILED BY THE P NO 209/2016
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT AS OP	ORIGINAL PETITION FILED BY THE NO 45/2018
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE P[PETITIONER OP	ORIGINAL PETITION FILED BY THE (G &W) NO 105/2018
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY OF THE 209/2016	IA NO 422 OF 2018 IN OP (DIVORCE) NO

¶41

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶42

NIL

¶43

AMG

Tony Jose v. Jerin Jose @ Aley

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tony Jose v. Jerin Jose @ Aley

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.C.Sathyaseelan Vs K.Kajal

Sherly Tomy, Vs Scaria

Santhosh Kumar D Vs Sreedevi A.P

Amal Ravi Vs State of Kerala

Jeeva Santhosh Vs Nomy Joppan

Vyshak K.R Vs the Inspector General of Police