Allowed

Dr.Mathew George v. Sarah Sapna Mathew

Kerala HC27 May 2019RPFC/182/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a revision petition, quashing an ex parte order on maintenance by the Family Court, Kottayam. The matter was remitted for a fresh hearing after hearing both sides, with a direction to pay Rs. 15,000 monthly interim maintenance.

What did the court decide?

Ex parte order set aside; matter remitted to Family Court for fresh hearing; interim maintenance fixed at Rs. 15,000 per month.

Dr.Mathew George Vs Sarah Sapna Mathew — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2019 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

RPFC.No. 182 of 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 45/2016 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/S:

¶8

DR.MATHEW GEORGE, AGED 52 YEARS S/O. DR. GEORGE MATHAI, KALLINGAL HOUSE, ASWATHIPURAM COLONY, MUTTAMBALAM POST AND VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

SARAH SAPNA MATHEW,W/O. MATHEW GEORGE, RESIDING AT PULICKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUDAYAMPADY, AYMANAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 001.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.ALEX.M.SCARIA

¶13

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.05.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶15

================== R.P.(F.C.) No. 182 of 2019

¶16

==================

¶17

Dated this the 27^th day of May, 2019 O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner is mainly aggrieved by the ex parte order dated 17.3.2018 rendered by the Family Court, Kottayam, in M.C.No. 45/ 2016 filed by the respondent wife for grant of maintenance. The petitioner's counsel submits that reasonable opportunity may be given to the petitioner to contest the matter on merits and this Court may remit the matter to the Family Court for consideration afresh after hearing both sides and with opportunity to adduce necessary evidence and that this Court may fix up a reasonable amount as interim maintenance to the wife.

¶19

Heard Sri.T.M.Raman Kartha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner husband and Sri.Alex M.Scaria, learned counsel appearing for the respondent (wife).

¶20

After hearing both sides and after going through the materials on record, this Court is of the considered view that, in the interest of justice the petitioner should be given a reasonable opportunity to contest the matter on merits. In that view of the matter, it is ordered that the impugned proceedings by which the petitioner has been set ex parte by the Family Court in M.C.No.

¶21

RPFC 182/19 - : 3 :-

¶22

45/2016 and that impugned order dated 17.3.2018 will stand set aside and M.C.No. 45/2016 will stand remitted to the Family Court, Kottayam, at Ettumanoor for consideration of the matter afresh after hearing both sides, on condition that the petitioner should pay interim maintenance @ Rs.15,000/- per month to the respondent herein (wife) with arrears thereon from the date of petition. Accordingly, the main matter in M.C.No. 45/2016 will stand remitted to the Family Court, Kottyam, at Ettumanoor.

¶23

The Family Court will pass orders after hearing both sides and after affording reasonable opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence. The petitioner will ensure that his pleadings are submitted without any further delay. The petitioner will also ensure that the interim maintenance is paid to the respondent wife @ Rs.15,000/per month from the date of abovesaid M.C. filed before the Family Court. However, it is ordered that in case the petitioner has already paid any maintenance amount in that regard to the respondent wife, then the said amount shall stand deducted. The abovesaid arrears by way of interim maintenance shall be cleared by the petitioner within one month and receipt in that regard shall be produced before the Family Court.

¶24

RPFC 182/19 - : 4 :-

¶25

If the petitioner does not comply with the said direction to pay interim maintenance amount, then the abovesaid direction setting aside the ex parte proceedings and remitting the matter to the Family Court will stand set aside automatically and the revision petition will also stand dismissed automatically. In case the petitioner deposits the arrears of the interim maintenance amount before the Family Court, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, the Family Court shall immediately release the same to the respondent wife and thereupon the Family Court will permit the petitioner to file pleadings in the matter and will ensure that the M.C. is disposed of within a period of 4 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶26

With these observations and directions, the above revision petition stands finally disposed of.

¶27

sdk+

¶28

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

Dr.Mathew George v. Sarah Sapna Mathew

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Mathew George v. Sarah Sapna Mathew

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

Preejith.K.P Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Preejith Vs the State of Kerala

Ajesh Kakkara, Vs the State of Kerala

Sujith Krishna, Vs State of Kerala

Divin Devassy, Vs State of Kerala

Hamsa Vs the State of Kerala