Allowed

Muhammed Basheer v. Palakkavalappil Puthiyamaliyekkal Mariyambeevi

Kerala HC20 Jun 2019OP(Crl.)/162/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed the petitioner's writ petition seeking a joint trial of a maintenance case and a declaration suit filed by the same parties. The Court set aside the Family Court order dismissing the joint trial plea, directed the Family Court to complete the joint trial within four months nominated by the High Court, and ordered the petitioner to pay pending interim maintenance arrea

What did the court decide?

The order rejecting the plea for joint trial was set aside; the Family Court was directed to ensure the joint trial is completed within four months, and the petitioner was ordered to pay interim maint

Muhammed Basheer Vs Palakkavalappil Puthiyamaliyekkal… — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

OP(Crl.).No.162 of 2019

¶6

C.M.P.NO.178/2019 IN MC 281/2015 of FAMILY COURT, TIRUR

¶7

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶8

MUHAMMED BASHEER

¶9

AGED 45 YEARS S/O. KUNHALIKUTTY, CHUNDAMVEETIL PAZHAYA OTTAYIL HOUSE, B.P. ANGADI P.O, THALAKKAD AMSOM THEVALAPPURAM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ SMT.T.S.SREEKUTTY

¶11

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶12

PALAKKAVALAPPIL PUTHIYAMALIYEKKAL MARIYAMBEEVI AGED 72 YEARS, D/O. KUTYAMI, CHUNDANVEETIL PAZHAYA OTTAYIL HOUSE, PIN-676501, B.P. ANGADI POST, THALAKKAD AMSOM THEVALAPPURAM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHAMSUDHEEN@ MANUTY, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. KUNHALIKUTTY, CHUNDANVEETIL PAZHAYA OTTAYIL HOUSE, PIN-676501, B.P. ANGADI POST THALAKKAD AMSOM, THEVALAPPURAM DESOM, TIRUR TAUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.R.RAMADAS

¶14

THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

OP(Crl.).No.162 of 2019

¶16

¶17

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶18

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(Crl) No. 162 of 2019

¶19

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20^th day of June, 2019

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The prayer in the O.P.(Crl) filed under Article 227 of the Constitution

¶22

of India are as follows:

¶23

pass any appropriate order or any direction to call for records leading to Ext.P4 order and set aside the same.

¶24

2. The case projected in this case is as follows:

¶25

The petitioner herein is the respondent and the respondent herein is the petitioner in M.C.281/2015 before the Family Court, Tirur seeking maintenance from respondent. The petitioner is the son and the respondent is his mother. The petitioner herein was set exparte in the above case. The petitioner herein filed an application as CMP No. 201/2018 in the above case to set aside the exparte order. The court below allowed the application imposing condition. The petitioner herein filed O.P.14/2019 for a declaration that he is not bound to maintain the respondent herein. The petitioner herein filed CMP No.178/2019 in M.C.No.281/2015 before Family Court Tirur for joint trial with O.P.14/2019. The court below dismissed the above application by way of Ext.P5 order.

¶26

It is in the light of these averments and contentions the

¶27

petitioner has filed the instant original petition for the aforementioned prayers.

¶28

¶29

OP(Crl.).No.162 of 2019

¶30

Sri. R. Ramdas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that though the attempt of the petitioner to seek joint trial appears to be for protracting the matters, still the respondent would concede for joint trial of both the cases and that respondent will complete his pleadings in the new matter in O.P.No.14/2019 on the file of the Family Court, Tirur within two weeks and that this court may direct the Family Court to have joint trial of the cases in M.C.No.281/2015 and O.P.No.14/2019, without much delay, preferably within a reasonable time fixed by this court.

¶31

Accordingly, it is ordered that Ext.P5 order rejecting the plea for joint trial will set aside. The respondent herein will ensure that this pleadings in the new pending O.P.14/2019 within 2 - 3 weeks. Thereafter, the Family Court will ensure that steps are taken for the joint trial of MC 281/2015 and O.P.14/2019, without much delay, so that the joint trial is completed within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶32

Further, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner herein has not fully complied with the interim directions of the Family Court to pay interim maintenance and that arrears to the tune of Rs.20,000/- is outstanding in that regard, which may be directed to be paid without any further delay.

¶33

OP(Crl.).No.162 of 2019

¶34

¶35

Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioner will comply with the directions of the Family Court in the matter of payment of the interim maintenance amount to the respondent herein and any outstanding amounts, in that regard should be duly paid by him within a month and he should continue to pay the interim maintenance amount, till the final disposal of the matters as aforedirected.

¶36

With these observations and directions, this petition will stand finally disposed of .

SD/-

ALEXANDER THOMAS

JUDGE

shg

OP(Crl.).No.162 of 2019

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶45

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT AND HER ELDER SONS DATED 30.01.2004.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE OP.14/2019 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT TIRUR DATED 19.12.2018.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE C.M.P.NO178/2019 IN MC NO.281/2015 BEFORE FAMILY COURT TIRUR DATED 20.02.2019.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CHEQUE APPLICATION NO.14/2019 IN M.C.NO.281/2015 OF FAMILY COURT, TIRUR DATED 12.2.2019.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO.178/2019 IN MC NO.281/2015 BEFORE FAMILY COURT TIRUR, DATED 25.02.2019.

Muhammed Basheer v. Palakkavalappil Puthiyamaliyekkal Mariyambeevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Basheer v. Palakkavalappil Puthiyamaliyekkal Mariyambeevi

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

Leo George Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Ashraf.K.K., Vs Afeefa.K.

Shanu @ Abdul Rahman Vs State of Kerala

Midhun Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Pushpakaran Vs the State of Kerala

Siyar Manuraj Vs State of Kerala