Allowed

Sreerag v. Amritha Menon

Kerala HC18 Nov 2019OP (FC)/621/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Family Court's order closing evidence because a witness summons was returned for insufficient address. The High Court found the family court failed to afford the petitioner an opportunity to verify the witness's address, set aside the impugned order, and directed the Family Court to provide sufficient opportunity for fresh service steps.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Family Court directed to give sufficient opportunity to petitioner to take fresh steps for service of summons on PW2.

Sreerag Vs Amritha Menon — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶6

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶7

OP (FC).No.621 OF 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP 127/2016 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD

¶9

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶10

SREERAG, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O VIJAYAN NAIR, SREERAGAM (H), THATTAMANGALAM CHALA, CHITOOR TALUK, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER VIJAYAN NAIR, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O KARUNAKARAN NAIR, SREERAGAM (H), THATTAMANGALAM POST, 678 102.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. SMT.P.PARVATHY SMT.SURYA P SHAJI SHRI.MANAS P HAMEED SRI.U.M.HASSAN SRI.P.K.ANTONY SMT.S.LEKHA SMT.J.KASTHURI SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI

¶12

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶13

AMRITHA MENON, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O SUDHAKARAN, KONGASSERRY (H), PALLASHENA POST, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD.

¶14

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-11-2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

OP (FC).No.621 OF 2019

JUDGMENT

Harilal,J.

The petitioner herein is the petitioner in O.P. No.127 of 2016 on the file of the Family Court, Palakkad. The above O.P was filed seeking a decree for dissolution of marriage. The petitioner had filed Exts.P1, P2 and P3 petitions, to examine two witnesses as PW1 and PW2, to prove certain averments of the petitioner in the above case. The above petitions were allowed and the Manager, Idea Cellular Ltd, Palakkad Office was examined as PW2. Subsequently, the petitioner filed Exts.P7 and P8 petitions

¶20

to recall PW2, to produce relevant documents, which were not produced earlier. The same was also allowed by

¶21

¶22

OP (FC).No.621 OF 2019

¶23

the Family Court. However, summons issued to PW2 was returned with endorsement as 'insufficient address', but the Family Court closed the evidence of the petitioner without giving an opportunity to send summons in the correct address. The legality and correctness of the proceedings, by which evidence stands

¶24

closed, are challenged in this O.P (FC).

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶26

petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶27

According to the petitioner, the

¶28

address of PW2 in Exts.P1, P2 and P3

¶29

petitions is the same as that given in Ext.P7 and Ext.P8 petitions. PW2 had

¶30

already appeared before the court below

¶31

and given evidence on earlier occasions,

¶32

when summons were sent in the same

¶33

¶34

OP (FC).No.621 OF 2019

¶35

address.

¶36

In the above circumstance, we find

¶37

that the Family Court ought to have

¶38

afforded sufficient opportunity to the

¶39

petitioner to verify and produce full

¶40

address of PW2. Instead of the same, the

¶41

Family Court has adopted an erroneous

¶42

procedure, by closing the evidence, for the said reason. Consequently, the

¶43

impugned order would stand set aside and the Family Court is directed to give

¶44

sufficient opportunity to the petitioner

¶45

herein to take fresh steps against PW2 to effect service.

¶46

This O.P (FC) is allowed accordingly.

Sd/-

K.HARILAL, JUDGE

Sd/-

ma C.S. DIAS, JUDGE

¶51

/True copy/ P.S to Judge

¶52

OP (FC).No.621 OF 2019

¶53

¶54

APPENDIX

¶55

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶56

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF IA NO 1575 OF 2019 IN OP NO 127 OF 2016
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF IA NO 1576 OF 2019 IN OP NO 127 OF 2016
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF IA 1577 OF 2019 IN OP NO 127 OF 2016
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED IN IA 1575 OF 2019 IN OP 127 OF 2016
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED IN IA 1576 OF 2019 IN OP 127 OF 2016
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED IN IA 1577 OF 2019 IN OP 127 OF 2016
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION AS IA NO 1896 OF 2019 IN OP NO 127 OF 2016
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION AS IA NO 1897 OF 2019 IN OP NO 127 OF 2016
EXHIBIT P9	THE RESPONDENT FILED OBJECTIONS, TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN IA NO 1896 OF 2019 IN OP NO 127 OF 2016
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN IA NO 1897 OF 2019 IN OP NO 127 OF 2016
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER FROM E- COURTS WEBSITE DATED 10.10.2019 IN OP 127 OF 2016

¶57

/True copy P.S to Judge

Sreerag v. Amritha Menon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sreerag v. Amritha Menon

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

Rajesh George Vs Poozhiupurath Rosa

D. Radhakrishnan Nair Vs Raji R.K.

Anshad Kunjumon Vs the District Police Chief

Rajula S.Bharathan Vs K.Shaji

P.P.Saina Vs K.M.Gopi

Prashanthi, Vs Ajithkumar