Allowed

Uma G.Nair, v. Vinaya Babu

Kerala HC23 Jul 2021OP (FC)/222/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed an original petition challenging the dismissal of an amendment application before the Family Court, Kollam, regarding the recovery of gold ornaments, holding that the amendment was necessary for proper adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The original petition challenging the dismissal of the amendment application is allowed. The amendment shall be incorporated within two weeks from the receipt of the judgment.

Uma G.Nair, Vs Vinaya Babu — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF JULY 2021 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1943 OP (FC) NO. 222 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 688/2014 OF FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

UMA G.NAIR, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.GOPINATHAN NAIR, UMANILAYAM HOUSE, NO.1, KALLOORI NAGAR, PEELAMEDU P.O., COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU STATE, PIN-641004.

¶9

BY ADVS. M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SRI.ARUN BOSE

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 VINAYA BABU, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.SUBASH CHANDRA BABU, SREELAKSHMI (HOUSE), LAKSHMINADA CIVIL STATION WARD, KOLLAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 013.

¶12

2 THE MANAGER, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE, AANANDAVALLEESWARAM BRANCH, KOLLAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-691 001.

¶13

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

OP (FC) No.222/2020 2

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

¶17

This Original Petition was filed challenging the dismissal of an application for amendment. The petitioner is the petitioner in O.P.No.688 of 2014 on the file of the Family Court, Kollam. The above original petition was filed for the recovery of gold ornaments. The petitioner filed an application for an amendment to incorporate the details of the gold ornaments. The respondents opposed the said application.

¶18

The Family Court dismissed the application holding that the petitioner ought to have stated the details of the gold ornaments while filing the original petition. It is further stated in the order that the petitioner ought to have filed such an application atleast when an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to ascertain and prepare the list of ornaments in the locker.

¶19

OP (FC) No.222/2020 3

¶20

Though notice was issued in this matter to the respondents, none appeared for them.

¶21

Having gone through the impugned order, we are of the view that the Family Court erred in dismissing the application. The question is whether such an amendment is necessary for proper adjudication of the issues involved before the Family Court or not. No prejudice will be caused if the petitioner is allowed to furnish the details of the gold ornaments. Anyway, if such an amendment has caused any prejudice, that can be very well safeguarded by the Family Court at the time of final hearing after assessing the pleadings as well as the evidence. The mere incorporation of the details at later stage in the pleadings will not confer any right on the petitioner. Such incorporation of the details if later stage found to be prejudicial to the respondents that can be considered at that time. Therefore, safeguarding the respondents' interest as above, we allow this original petition. The amendment shall be incorporated within two weeks

¶22

OP (FC) No.222/2020 4

¶23

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the Family Court, Kollam.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

¶31

OP (FC) No.222/2020 5

¶32

APPENDIX OF OP (FC) NO.222/2020

¶33

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶34

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL PETITION AS OP NO. 688/2014. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION AS IA NO.1254/2014 IN OP NO.688/2014. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSIONER REPORT DATED 20.08.2014. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDMENT APPLICATION AS IA NO.1845/2014. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO IA NO. 1845/2014. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT APPLICATION AS IA NO.410/2017 IN OP NO. 688/2014. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO IA NO. 410/2017 IN OP NO.688/2014. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 27.12.2018. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2020 IN IA NO.410/2017 IN OP NO. 688/2014.

Uma G.Nair, v. Vinaya Babu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uma G.Nair, v. Vinaya Babu

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

Tinu Joseph, Vs Nil

Mashida K. a. Vs Shafeek v. a.

Dr.Nishana Kabeer Vs Sajad Asanaru Kunju

Lijith P. Kurian, Vs Rincy Marium Raju

Praveen A.R. Vs Remya

Sanil K.Sadasivan Vs Anuja S.Sasi