Remanded

Siljo Thomas v. Soumya Sebastian

Kerala HC7 Jun 2019RPFC/133/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court remitted a maintenance case to the Family Court for afresh consideration due to the petitioner's claim of suppressed facts regarding a prior domestic violence settlement. Interim maintenance was reduced pending final orders.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order set aside; main matter remitted to Family Court for reconsideration; interim maintenance reduced to Rs.3,000 for respondent 1 and Rs.2,000 for respondent 2.

Siljo Thomas Vs Soumya Sebastian — 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

FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

RPFC.No. 133 of 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 249/2017 of FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY DATED 08-10-2018

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶8

SILJO THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS, KURISUVEETTIL HOUSE, MANIKKADAVU, MANIKKADAVAU P.O, PIN 670 705, KANNUR THROUGH THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER THOMAS K.S, S/O. SEBASTIAN, AGED 63 YEARS, KURISUMEETIL HOUSE, MANIPPARA P.O, IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 SOUMYA SEBASTIAN, AGED 32 YEARS D/O. SEBASTIAN, MANIYATTU HOUSE, KALANKI, KALANKI P.O, IRITTY THALUK, KANNUR 670 703.

¶12

2 ANN ROSE, AGED 7 YEARS D/O. SILJO THOMAS, (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY MONTHER AND NEXT FRIEND-THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.CIBI THOMAS SRI.CIBI THOMAS

¶14

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶16

================== R.P.(F.C.) No. 133 of 2019 ================== Dated this the 7^th day of June, 2019 O R D E R

¶17

The above revision petition has been filed under Sec. 19(4) of the Family Court Act, read with Sec.401 of the Cr.P.C. to impugn the order dated 8.10.2016 rendered by the Family Court, Thalassery, in M.C.No. 249/2017.

¶18

Heard Sri.Nandagopal S.Kurup, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Cibi Thomas learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶19

The Family Court as per the impugned order, has now directed the petitioner herein to pay maintenance @ Rs. 5,000/- per month the 1^st respondent herein (wife) and Rs. 4,000/- per month to the 2^nd respondent (minor daughter). The main ground urged by the petitioner in support of his revisional endeavour is that the 1^st respondent herein had earlier filed M.C.No. 114/2014 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Mattannur, under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and the said DV matter was settled as per agreement arrived at between the petitioner herein and the 1^st respondent and that the 1^st respondent herein has suppressed the said crucial factual aspect in the abovesaid

¶20

RPFC 133/19 - : 3 :-

¶21

maintenance case filed before the Family Court. It is pointed out that the abovesaid settlement agreement dated 18.8.2016 has been produced as Anx.A-1 before the Family Court in the instant maintenance case. Various other grounds have also been urged by the petitioner.

¶22

After hearing both sides and after perusal of the impugned judgment, this Court is of the view that the matter requires serious reconsideration at the hands of the Family Court, in relation to the abovesaid aspects and therefore, it warrants a remit. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 8.10.2018 rendered by the Family Court, Thalassery, in M.C.No. 249/2017 will stand set aside and the main matter in M.C.No. 249/2017 will stand remitted to the Family Court, Thalassery, for considering afresh. The Family Court will grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to both sides and will deal with the abovesaid contentions of the petitioner herein and any other contentions that may be raised by both sides and then will render its final orders in the maintenance case without much delay, preferably within an outer time limit of 3 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Until final orders are so passed by the Family Court in the abovesaid maintenance case, the petitioner will pay interim maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- (rupees three thousand) per

¶23

RPFC 133/19 - : 4 :-

¶24

month to the 1^st respondent herein and the Rs. 2,000/- (rupees two thousand only) to the 2^nd respondent herein (minor child) without fail. The petitioner may deposit the said amounts before the Family Court, upon which the said court will immediately release the said amount to the respondents. The payments of the abovesaid amounts will be subject to the final result of the maintenance case.

¶25

With these observations and directions, the R.P.(F.C.) will stand finally disposed of.

¶26

sdk+

¶27

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

Siljo Thomas v. Soumya Sebastian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siljo Thomas v. Soumya Sebastian

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

Muhammed Asif Vs State of Kerala

Ismail M. Vs State of Kerala

Mobin T Joy Vs State of Kerala

Jyothi Basu, Vs the State of Kerala

Paul, Vs State of Kerala

Ashik.P @ Muhammed Ashik.P Vs the State of Kerala