The Kerala High Court dismissed a revision petition under Order XXXIX Rule 2 CPC for non-prosecution. The petitioner was absent, allegedly due to a lack of sufficient ground for entertaining the revision of a maintenance order.
Revision petition dismissed for non-prosecution.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1943
RPFC NO. 64 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 84/2016 OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
RAJESH KUMAR K., AGED 40, S/O.SHANTHAMMA.K., KUDATHUMPARA, THAIMARAVUMKARE, KUTTOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA- PIN: REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND AND MOTHER SHANTHAMMA.K., AGED 59, KUDATHUMPARA, THAIMARAVUMKARE, KUTTOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA- PIN - 689106.
BY ADVS. SRI.SAJI MATHEW SRI.DENU JOSEPH SMT.NEETHU REGHUKUMAR
RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS:
1 SUJATHA K.T., AGED 39, D/O.THANKAPPAN.M.K., KURUTHIKALATHILAYA KUNNATHARAYIL, ANJILLATHANAM MURI, KUNNAMTHANAM VILLAGE, MALLAPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN -689 585.
2 NANDAKISHOR,
AGED 3, S/O.RAJESH KUMAR.K., REPRESENTED BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND MOTHER, SUJATHA.K.T., AGED 39, D/O.THANKAPPAN.M.K., KURUTHIKALATHILAYA KUNNATHARAYIL, ANJILLATHANAM MURI, KUNNAMTHANAM VILLAGE, MALLAPALLY, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN -689 585.
BY ADV. SMT.G.CHITRA
SR.G.P.SMT.S.SEETHA
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RPFC NO. 64 OF 2020 2
ORDER
The revision petitioner and counsel remained absent, though the revision is against the order of maintenance dated 24/7/2017. The counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that the absence is wilful presumably on the reason that there is no sufficient ground for entertaining a revision of this
nature. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
msp
RPFC NO. 64 OF 2020 3
APPENDIX OF R.P.F.C.NO.64/2020
PETITIONER ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A1 THE MEDICAL RECORD OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRY, MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOTTAYAM ON 29.01.2015 ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE M.C.NO.84/2016 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE FAMILY COURT THIRUVALLA. ANNEXURE A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER IN M.C.NO.84/2016 ANNEXURE A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION FILED ON 24.07.2017 IN M.C.NO.84/2016 BEFORE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revision petition should be entertained given the petitioner's absence.
RAJESH KUMAR K.
SUJATHA K.T.
NANDAKISHOR
P.SOMARAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
