Dismissed

Sajeesh. E.K, v. Sasikala. P. S.

Kerala HC9 Jul 2021OP(Crl.)/200/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of the Kerala High Court dismissed an O.P.(CRL.) challenging an ex parte maintenance order. The court held that the petitioner's failure to deposit 60% of the required maintenance despite time grants and neglect of notices rendered the petition devoid of merit, affirming his liability to maintain the wife and children.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's O.P.(CRL.) dismissed; respondents at liberty to proceed with coercive steps.

Sajeesh. E.K, Vs Sasikala. P. S. — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

OP(CRL.) NO. 200 OF 2021 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶5

FRIDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1943

¶6

OP(CRL.) NO. 200 OF 2021

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 18/2019 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM PETITIONER:

¶8

SAJEESH. E.K, S/O. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, SAJI NIVAS, PUTHARIKKARA, VANIYAMBALAM P. O., KOORAD, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV K.VIDYASAGAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 SASIKALA. P. S., 36 YEARS D/O. SASIKUMAR, PUTHANMADATHIL HOUSE, ARIMANAL P. O., KALIKAVU NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

2 YADHUKRISHNAN, 12 YEARS

¶13

3 ANANTHAKRISHNAN,6 YEARS

¶14

(MINORS ARE REPRESENTED BY MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT)

¶15

THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

OP(CRL.) NO. 200 OF 2021 2

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

It is too unfortunate that the petitioner in spite of

¶19

grant of further time on two occasions by this court, so far

¶20

the condition to deposit 60% of the maintenance amount

¶21

ordered by the Family Court as a condition to set aside the ex parte order of maintenance not complied with. The

¶22

maintenance ordered appears to be so meager, which comes to Rs.3,000/- to the first respondent, the wife, Rs.2,000/- and Rs.1,500/- respectively to the minor children. Only 60% of

¶23

the said amount was ordered to be paid as a condition so as to set aside the ex parte order of maintenance. Nothing was brought to the notice of this court so as to satisfy why he

¶24

had kept away from the Family court in spite of notice. The right to apply for setting aside the ex parte order shall

¶25

not be a device in the hand of husband so as to deny and defeat his liability to maintain the wife and children.

¶26

Hence O.P.(Crl) deserves no merits. The same will stand

¶27

dismissed. The respondents are at liberty to proceed against

¶28

the petitioner by taking coercive steps.

¶29

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE

¶30

msp

¶31

OP(CRL.) NO. 200 OF 2021 3

¶32

APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 200/2021

¶33

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

¶34

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPARTE ORDER DATED 24.12.2019 IN MC NO.18/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM.

¶35

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 08.12.2020 IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.1/2020 IN MC NO.18/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM.

Sajeesh. E.K, v. Sasikala. P. S.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajeesh. E.K, v. Sasikala. P. S.

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

Njanadurai Vs State of Kerala

Sunil.S Vs Anitha.G.Kumar

Thomas Augustine Vs Babu

Anitha Job Alukka Vs Job v. Alukka

Sunitha Beegum .M.P Vs State of Kerala

Harilal.C.M. Vs State of Kerala