Dismissed

Prasanth.P.S v. Seema Rani

Kerala HC5 Feb 2019Mat.Appeal/365/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an appeal against a 2010 ex parte decree from the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The lower court had granted maintenance and ordered property release based on the respondent's affidavit as the appellant failed to appear. The High Court found no merit in the appeal grounds and upheld the decree.

What did the court decide?

The appeal stands dismissed upholding the Family Court's decree.

Prasanth.P.S Vs Seema Rani — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU

¶6

TUESDAY ,THE 05TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 16TH MAGHA, 1940 Mat.Appeal.No. 365 of 2011

¶7

OP 522/2006 of FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM

¶8

APPELLANT

¶9

PRASANTH.P.S, AGE 26, S/O SUSEELAN NADAR KADAVILA VEEDU,KANJAMPAZHINIJI,THIRUPURAM, VILLAGE,NEYYATTINKARA TALUK.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SMT.A.NEENA JOSE SRI.P.M.SANEER SRI.V.S.THOSHIN

¶11

RESPONDENT

¶12

SEEMA RANI M.S. , D/O MATTILDA, AGE 26, CHURCH VIEW,NEAR CSI CHURCH,KOLLAYIL VILLAGE,, DHANUVACHAPURAM,NEYYATTINKARA TALUK.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.THIRUMALA P.K.MANI

¶14

THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Mat.Appeal.365/2011

JUDGMENT

Shaffique, J.

1.This appeal is filed against an order dated 28.12.2010 in O.P.522/2006 of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The Original Petition is filed by the respondent herein seeking maintenance and for a direction to the respondent to release the one-half share of the property of the appellant covered by settlement deed No.2605/2002. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that though the factum of marriage is not disputed, the claim raised in the OP came to be allowed since the appellant was declared ex parte. It is submitted that the appellant has substantial contentions on merits of the case and if an opportunity is not granted, the appellant will be put to serious hardship.

¶20

2.But it is relevant to note that though the

¶21

Mat.Appeal.365/2011

¶22

¶23

judgment was delivered on 28.12.2010 ex parte, no steps were taken to set aside the ex parte order. Apparently the appellant had been served with notice for appearance in the case but he failed to appear.

¶24

The question would be whether there is any merit in the contentions raised in the memorandum of appeal. The grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal state that the appellant was outside the jurisdictional limits and he could not appear in the case for about ten months. There is absoultely no contention urged regarding the merits of the respondent's case or the error in the judgment which warrants interference by this court. Under such circumstances, when the Family Court had placed reliance upon the affidavit filed by the respondent and had passed a decree granting maintenance as well as directing the respondent in the OP to release the one halfshare of his property in favour of the petitioner, we do not think that the Family Court had committed any error warranting

¶25

Mat.Appeal.365/2011

¶26

interference by exercising appellate

¶27

jurisdiction. Since no grounds are made out for interference, the appeal stands dismissed.

Sd/-

A.M.SHAFFIQUE Judge

Sd/-

A.M.BABU

Judge

Mrcs/5.2.19

True copy

P.S.To Judge

Prasanth.P.S v. Seema Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasanth.P.S v. Seema Rani

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

Benedict Lopez Vs Scelia and 3 Others

Dr. Geetha Nair Vs N. Ashok Kumar

K.M.Prabhath Vs T.Rajitha

Abdul Vahab Vs Ruksana

Chellappan Pillai Vs Sudharma and Another

Sudharma Vs Madhusoodanan Pillai and Another