Dismissed

Rajeena v. Jumailathu Beevi

Kerala HC3 Mar 2021OP (FC)/249/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an original petition challenging the Family Court's dismissal of an objection on maintainability. The court held that the Family Court can examine the maintainability of a decree at the final hearing despite the interim dismissal of the objection.

What did the court decide?

The original petition was dismissed with liberty to the Family Court to examine the matter of maintainability at the final hearing.

Rajeena Vs Jumailathu Beevi — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | 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

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶7

OP (FC).No.249 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.No.1132/2018 in OP 1362/2016 DATED 2802-2020 OF FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL

¶9

PETITIONER/S:

¶10

RAJEENA

¶11

AGED 34 YEARS D/O.RAHIYANATHU, SALIM MANDIRAM, KALLOORKONAM, PERUMKULAM DESOM, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695102.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.J.JAYAKUMAR

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 JUMAILATHU BEEVI

¶15

AGED 51 YEARS

¶16

W/O.ABDUL RAHIM, RASHEEDA MANIL, KURAKKADA, P.O.ANDOOR, KIZHUVILAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT695104.

¶17

2 JASEELA, D/O.JUMAILATHU BEEVI, RASHEEDA MANIL, KURAKKADA, P.O.ANDOOR, KIZHUVILAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT695104.

¶18

3 JASEENA BEEVI, D/O.JUMAILATHU BEEVI, RASHEEDA MANIL, KURAKKADA, P.O.ANDOOR, KIZHUVILAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT695104.

¶19

R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.JEPH JOSEPH

¶20

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-022021, THE COURT ON 03-03-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

OP (FC).No.249 OF 2020

¶22

-:2:-

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Dated this the 3rd day of March 2021

¶25

A.Muhamed Mustaque

¶26

The original petition was filed challenging an order passed on I.A.No.1132/2018 raising maintainability of O.P.No.1362/2016 on the file of the Family Court, Attingal. Ext.P6 is the said order. The respondents instituted the above O.P.No.1362/2016 for declaring that the decree obtained by the petitioner herein in O.P.No. 1350/2008 on the Family Court, Nedumangad, is null and void. The Family Court, after adverting to the factual matter, dismissed I.A.No.1132/2018 raising objection on maintainability.

¶27

The question on maintainability in this case essentially is a mixed question of fact and law.

¶28

The petitioner's case is that the respondents already raised an objection under Order 21 Rule 99 C.P.C while executing the decree in O.P.No.1350/2008 and, therefore, the challenge to

¶29

OP (FC).No.249 OF 2020

¶30

-:3:-

¶31

the very same decree in the present original petition (O.P.No.1362/2016) is not maintainable.

¶32

This is not a case where a decision can be rendered at the threshold. It would have been appropriate for the Family Court to postpone the decision at the final hearing. Anyway, we are of the view that untrammeled by any observations in the impugned order, it is open for the Family Court to consider the question regarding maintainability at the time of final hearing. The dismissal of objection on maintainability will not preclude the Family Court in examining the matter after adducing evidence by both sides. We, therefore, dismiss this original petition with liberty as above.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

¶37

¶38

OP (FC).No.249 OF 2020

¶39

-:4:-

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶42

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.NO.1362/2016 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.07.2011
	IN O.P.NO.1350/2008 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD.

¶43

EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.02.2020 IN E.A.NO.100/2015 IN E.P.NO.23/2013 IN O.P.NO.1350/ OF FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.1132/2018 IN O.P.NO.1362/2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL.
EXHIBIT P4(A)	TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P4.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS I.A.NO.1132/2018 IN O.P.NO.1362/2016 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2020 IN I.A.NO.1132/2018 IN O.P.NO.1362/2016 OF

Rajeena v. Jumailathu Beevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeena v. Jumailathu Beevi

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

Jameela Vs Hamsa

Chinnamma Scaria Vs Benoy Scaria

Karthyayani Ramakrishnan Vs Sajitha K.R.

Rethi Mohan Vs Sunitha

Sumesh G.S. Vs Prinila Joly

Philpose Kunjumon @ Anil, Vs Jessy Philpose @ Jessy Chacko