Partly allowed

Jayan v. Subadra

Kerala HC11 Dec 2019OP (FC)/683/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses writ petitions filed by a husband challenging Family Court orders that restored his divorce and restitution petitions after finding willful laches. The High Court invoked Article 227 Supreme Court jurisdiction, found no illegality but granted one more opportunity to deposit amounts conditionally.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted time to deposit Rs.50,000 and 1/4th E.P. amount; cases consolidated; disposal directed within two months.

Jayan Vs Subadra — 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

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶7

OP (FC).No.683 OF 2019

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP 821/2013 DATED 11.10.2019 OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

JAYAN, S/O KOCHARA VELAYUDHAN, AGED 51 YEARS ALA KOTHAPARAMBU DESOM, SN PURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MADHUSOODHANAN, S/O. THEVALIL SIVARAMAN, AGED 68 YEARS, KOTTAPPURAM DESOM, METHALA VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

SUBADRA, AGED 37 YEARS SAMMANTHAVAPURAM, ANNANAGAR 382, CHETTIPALAYAM, COIMBATORE (W/O. KOCHARA JAYAN, ALA KOTHAPARAMBU DESOM, SN PURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK.

¶14

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.12.2019, ALONG WITH OP (FC).685/2019, OP (FC).686/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

OP (FC).683/2019, OP (FC).685/2019, OP (FC).686/2019

¶16

..2..

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶18

PRESENT

¶19

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶20

¶21

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶22

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶23

OP (FC).No.685 OF 2019

¶24

AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.552/2019 IN OP 774/2012 DATED 11-102019 OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA

¶25

PETITIONER/S:

¶26

JAYAN, S/O KOCHARA VELAYUDHAN @ KUNJAMBU, AGED 51 YEARS ALA KOTHAPARAMBU DESOM, SN PURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MADHUSOODHANAN, S/O. THEVALIL SIVARAMAN, AGED 68 YEARS, KOTTAPPURAM DESOM, METHALA VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK.

¶27

BY ADVS. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH

¶28

RESPONDENT/S:

¶29

SUBADRA, AGED 37 YEARS SAMMANTHAVAPURAM, ANNANAGAR 382, CHETTIPALAYAM, COIMBATORE (W/O. KOCHARA JAYAN, ALA KOTHAPARAMBU DESOM, SN PURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK.

¶30

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.12.2019, ALONG WITH OP (FC).683/2019, OP (FC).686/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

OP (FC).683/2019, OP (FC).685/2019, OP (FC).686/2019

¶32

..3..

¶33

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶34

PRESENT

¶35

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶36

¶37

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

¶38

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶39

OP (FC).No.686 OF 2019

¶40

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.10.2019 IN I.A. NO.554/2019 IN OP 821/2013 OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA

¶41

PETITIONER/S:

¶42

¶43

BY ADVS. SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH

¶44

RESPONDENT/S:

¶45

SUBADRA, AGED 37 YEARS SAMMANTHAVAPURAM, ANNANAGAR 382, CHETTIPALAYAM, COIMBATORE (W/O. KOCHARA JAYAN, ALA KOTHAPARAMBU DESOM, SN PURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK.

¶46

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.12.2019, ALONG WITH OP (FC).683/2019, OP (FC).685/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶47

OP (FC).683/2019, OP (FC).685/2019, OP (FC).686/2019

¶48

..4..

¶49

JUDGMENT

¶50

Dated this the 11th day of December 2019

¶51

C.S.Dias,J.

¶52

These original petitions are filed challenging the common order dated 11.10.2019 passed by the Family Court, Irinjalakuda.

¶53

The respondent in this original petition, the wife of the petitioner, filed O.P.Nos. 774/2012 and 821/2013, against the petitioner seeking a decree for return of money and gold ornaments and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, respectively. The petitioner filed O.P.No.466/2014 against the respondent, seeking a decree for dissolution of marriage, by decree of divorce.

¶54

On the date the above cases were posted for evidence, the counsel for the petitioner before

¶55

OP (FC).683/2019, OP (FC).685/2019, OP (FC).686/2019

¶56

..5..

¶57

the Family Court reported 'no instructions'. Accordingly, the Family Court dismissed O.P.No.466/2014 filed by the petitioner and allowed O.P.Nos. 774/2012 & 821/2013 filed by the respondent. The petitioner filed an application to restore O.P.Nos.466/2014 and applications to set aside the ex parte decree in O.P.Nos. 821/2013 and 774/2012, along with applications to condone the delay in filing all the applications. The respondent vehemently opposed all the applications.

¶58

The Family Court after considering the pleadings in the applications and written objections came to the conclusion that the petitioner was negligent in prosecuting the cases and there was willful laches on his part in not appearing before the Court on the date the cases were posted for evidence.

¶59

OP (FC).683/2019, OP (FC).685/2019, OP (FC).686/2019

¶60

..6..

¶61

The Family Court by the impugned common

¶62

order allowed the restoration of O.P.No.466/2014 as well as set aside the ex parte decrees in O.P.Nos. 774/2012 and 821/2013, on condition that the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.50,000/and also deposits 1/4^th of the E.P amount, failing which the above applications will stand dismissed.

¶63

It is assailing the conditions imposed by the Family Court in the impugned common order that the present original petitions are filed.

¶64

Heard Sri.M.Shaji Purushothaman, the

¶65

counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, who is party-in-person.

¶66

On going through the impugned common order passed, we find that there is willful laches and negligence on the part of the petitioner in prosecuting the cases. Undisputedly, the cases are of the year 2012, 2013 and 2014, respectively. The

¶67

OP (FC).683/2019, OP (FC).685/2019, OP (FC).686/2019

¶68

..7..

¶69

cases were posted for evidence. The petitioner did not appear before the Family Court to conduct the cases. His counsel reported 'no instructions'. The Family Court by the impugned common order finding the objective of the petitioner was to procrastinate the determination of the cases, rightly passed the impugned common order.

¶70

After verifying the pleadings, documents, the impugned common order and after hearing the counsel for parties, we are of the view that there is no bona fides on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner was not diligent in prosecuting the original petitions. However, taking a lenient view, the Family Court provided the petitioner one more opportunity to contest the case on merits. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or perversity in the common order passed by the Family Court, warranting the invocation of the supervisory

¶71

OP (FC).683/2019, OP (FC).685/2019, OP (FC).686/2019

¶72

..8..

¶73

jurisdiction of this Court as enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, we are inclined to grant the petitioner time to deposit 1/4^th of the E.P amount ordered by the Family Court, by a further period of one month from today, on condition that that petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) before the Family Court within a period of two weeks from today. The amount of Rs.50,000/-, if deposited, shall be immediately released to the respondent. We make it clear that the order of attachment before judgment of property of the respondent shall continue to remain in force till final determination of the case. Considering the fact that the cases are pending before the Family Court for the last more than six years, we direct the Family Court, Irinjalakkuda, to consolidate and dispose of the cases as

¶74

OP (FC).683/2019, OP (FC).685/2019, OP (FC).686/2019

¶75

..9..

¶76

expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. All further proceedings in the execution petition shall be kept in abeyance, on condition that the petitioner complies with the directions in this judgment.

¶77

The original petitions are disposed of as above.

Sd/-

K.HARILAL

JUDGE

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS JUDGE

SB/12/12/2019

OP (FC).683/2019, OP (FC).685/2019, OP (FC).686/2019

¶85

..10..

¶86

APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 683/2019

¶87

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶88

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF I.A 554/2019 IN O.P 821/2013 DT.1-4-2019 EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A 554/2019 IN O.P 821/2013 DT. 11-102019

¶89

RESPONDENTS EXTS: NIL

¶90

OP (FC).683/2019, OP (FC).685/2019, OP (FC).686/2019

¶91

..11..

¶92

APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 685/2019

¶93

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶94

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN OP.774/2012 AND OP NO.821/2013 DT 24.10.2017 EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF E.P.31/2018 DT.25.6.2018 EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF IA 552/2019 IN OP 774/2012 DT 1.4.2019 EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO.552/2019 IN OP 774/2012 DT 11.10.2019

¶95

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF IA 2405/2019 IN OP 774/2012 DT 19.10.2019

¶96

RESPONDENTS EXTS: NIL

¶97

OP (FC).683/2019, OP (FC).685/2019, OP (FC).686/2019

¶98

..12..

¶99

APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 686/2019

¶100

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶101

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF I.A.556/2019 IN O.P.466/2014 DATED 1.4.2019.

¶102

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.556/2019 IN O.P.466/2014 DATED 11.10.2019.

¶103

RESPONDENTS EXTS: NIL

¶104

// TRUE COPY //

¶105

P.A TO JUDGE

Jayan v. Subadra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayan v. Subadra

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

Shibi Vs Aswathy

C.H.Ibrahim Vs M.K.Jisna

M.a.Ajeeb, Vs N.a.Khader Pillai

P.Anilkumar Vs Ajitha

Rajeesh Mon.M Vs State of Kerala

Sebastian Chokkattu Vs the Appellate Tribunal for Safema