Original petition challenging the Family Court's order deferring decision on maintainability of a legitimacy declaration. High Court held issue was mixed fact/law requiring evidence and dismissed the writ.
The original petition challenging the Family Court order is dismissed.
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 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942
OP (FC).No.14 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 511/2019 OF FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY
PETITIONER:
MEENOTH PADMANABHAN, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O MEENOTH RAMAN, REENA NIVAS, PAREEKKADAVU ROAD, DHARMADAM AMSOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
RESPONDENT:
VIMOJ KUMAR, S/O MEENOTH PADMANABHAN, CHITHRALAYAM, THALASSERY AMSOM, VADIKKAKAM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 101.
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-03-2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (FC).No.14 OF 2020
..2..
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 16th day of March 2021
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J
This original petition was filed challenging the order in an application to consider the maintainability of O.P. No. 511 of 2019 on the file of the Family court, Thalassery. The petitioner raised a preliminary issue as to the maintainability of the petition. The Court postponed the decision stating that it can be decided only after adducing evidence.
maintainability at the threshold itself, if it is only a pure question of law. Here in this case, the question raised by the petitioner is a mixed question of facts and law. The petitioner's case is that the petition filed by the respondent before the Family Court does not disclose a marital dispute. The main prayer of the respondent before the Family
OP (FC).No.14 OF 2020
Court is to declare that he is the legitimate son of the petitioner.
In such circumstances, we are of the view that such question can only be decided after adducing evidence and the Family Court has rightly postponed the decision at the time of final hearing. We are not inclined to interfere with such an order invoking the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this original petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
PR
OP (FC).No.14 OF 2020
..4..
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OP NO 511/2019 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO 1148/2019 IN O.P.NO 511/2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2019 IN IA NO 1148/2019 IN O.P.NO 511/2019 OF FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere via Article 227 jurisdiction with the Family Court order postponing decision on maintainability due to mixed question of facts and law.
Whether the respondent's petition for declaration of legitimacy discloses a marital dispute at the threshold stage without evidence.
Meenoth Padmanabhan
Vimoj Kumar
A.Muhamed Mustaque
Dr. Kauser Edappagath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
