Allowed

Susmitha, v. Santosh Raj

Kerala HC27 Sept 2021OP (FC)/433/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala set aside an order dismissing a petition to reopen evidence in divorce proceedings. The court held the application should be restored and allowed despite previous dismissal due to counsel non-appearance, subject to scrutiny for prejudice during evidence appreciation.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dismissing the application to reopen evidence was set aside and the application to reopen evidence was allowed.

Susmitha, Vs Santosh Raj — 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 MONDAY, THE 27^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 5TH ASWINA, 1943

¶6

OP (FC) NO. 433 OF 2021

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.1780/2015 OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

SUSMITHA, AGED 42 YEARS, D/O. LANCILET, REEJA BHAVAN, KALLAYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 028. BY ADV RINU. S. ASWAN

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

SANTOSH RAJ, AGE NOT KNOWN, S/O. SATHYANESAN, S.S. BHAVAN, NELLIKKAVILA, POWDIKONAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 588.

¶12

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

OP (FC) NO.433/2021 2

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

. A.Muhamed Mustaque, J

¶16

The petitioner's petition for reopening the evidence has been

¶17

dismissed for default. Ext.P5 is the order. The said order is under challenge in this case.

¶18

Though notice has been served to the respondent, none appears.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶20

The petitioner is the respondent in a petition for

¶21

divorce. After the closure of the evidence, she filed an application

¶22

to reopen the evidence. Ext.P3 is the petition to reopen the evidence. The respondent raised an objection.

¶23

According to the petitioner, the application has been

¶24

dismissed on account of non-representation. It is submitted that

¶25

due to stringent lock down restrictions, the counsel or parties

¶26

could not appear on 20.03.2021.

¶27

OP (FC) NO.433/2021 3

¶28

We are of the view that the application has to be

¶29

restored. We also are of the view that the application for reopening the evidence has to be allowed in the interest of substantial justice. However, this will be subject to the further condition that if any prejudice is caused on such reopening, certainly, that will not preclude the Family Court examining the same while appreciating the evidence.

¶30

With the above observations, the impugned order is set aside. The petition filed by the petitioner to reopen the evidence is allowed.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

¶35

¶36

OP (FC) NO.433/2021 4

¶37

APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 433/2021

¶38

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶39

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.P. NO. 1780 OF 2015 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DATED 31.10.2015.

¶40

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.P. NO.1780 OF 2015 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DATED 9.12.2016.

¶41

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. NO.4146 OF 2019 IN O.P.NO.1780 OF 2015 ON THE FILES OF LD, FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DATED 20.11.2019.

¶42

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO THE I.A. NO.4146 OF 2019 IN O.P. NO.1780 OF 2015 ON THE FILES OF LD. FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DATED 10.12.2019.

¶43

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO. 4146/2019 (NUMBERED AS I.A. NO. 4146/2020) IN O.P. NO. 1780 OF 2015 ON THE FILES OF LD, FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DATED 20.03.2021.

Susmitha, v. Santosh Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Susmitha, v. Santosh Raj

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

Mariakutty Joseph Vs Sindhu Thomas

Krishnakumari Vs Thilakan

Shibil Sherin Vs Luckmanul Hakim

Treasa Bency @ Bency N.L., Vs Dr. Preceline George @ Antony Preceline George

Anu K.Joseph Vs Thomas Joy K

Vinod Vs Shali P.