Disposed

Suresh M.R. v. Rinija J.

Kerala HC26 Mar 2021OP (FC)/71/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Family Court order disposing this petition was challenged due to the petitioner's habitual default in paying costs and prosecuting proceedings. The High Court directed the petitioner to pay a further sum to the respondent and deposit maintenance arrears within one month as conditions to allow pending applications.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to pay ₹5,000 further to respondent and deposit maintenance arrears within one month on pain of not getting benefit of the order.

Suresh M.R. Vs Rinija J. — Maintenance and Alimony | 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 MR.JUSTICE DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1943

¶7

OP (FC).No.71 OF 2021

¶8

AGAINST EP NO.48/2017 IN OP 354/2013 OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA

¶9

PETITIONER:

¶10

SURESH M.R. AGED 35 YEARS S/O.SELVARAJ, MEMANA PALLATH HOUSE, NANNOOR MURI, VALLAKULAM P.O., ERAVIPEROOR, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.

¶12

SRI.T.P.PRADEEP SRI.P.K.SATHEES KUMAR SMT.MINIKUMARY M.V.

¶13

RESPONDENT:

¶14

RINIJA J. RIJO BHAVAN, EROOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-689695.

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.RAAJESH S.SUBRAHMANIAN R1 BY ADV. SMT.R.RAJALEKSHMI R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.R.RAJESH

¶16

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-032021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

OP(FC) No.71/2021

-:2:-

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 26^th day of March, 2021

¶21

A.Muhamed Mustaque,J.

¶22

The petitioner appears to be a habitual defaulter in prosecuting the proceedings before the Family Court. He was set ex parte and then he filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree. That was not prosecuted and it was dismissed. Thereupon, he approached this court and this court set aside the order directing payment of cost of 10,000/ and remitted the matter back to the Family Court. He paid the cost. Thereafter his application to set aside ex parte decree along with the petition to condone the delay were allowed. Petitioner was directed to pay 5,000/- each as cost. He failed to remit the amount within time. Accordingly, he filed an application to extend the time and that was rejected. Challenging the above order, he approached this court. He filed a review petition and that was also dismissed.

¶23

To put a quietus to this matter, we are of the

¶24

view that besides `5,000/- each ordered, petitioner

¶25

OP(FC) No.71/2021

¶26

-:3:-

¶27

shall pay a further sum of `5,000/- to the respondent through counsel appearing before this court within a week from today. Petitioner is also directed to deposit the entire maintenance arrears within one month. On satisfying the above conditions, all the applications filed by the petitioner would stand allowed. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to adhere to any one of the conditions, he will not get the benefit of this order.

¶28

OP(FC) is disposed of as above.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

JUDGE

OP(FC) No.71/2021

-:4:-

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.NO.354/2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER'S WIFE BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA.

¶41

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.354/2013 DATED 25.01.2017 ISSUED BY THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE E.P.NO.48/2017 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.355/2018 IN O.P.NO.354/2013 DATED 19.04.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.356/2018 IN O.P.NO.354/2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.07.2018 IN OP(FC)NO.235 OF 2018. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.07.2018 IN I.A.NO.355/2018. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM DATED 30.11.2018 IN OP(FC)NO.641/2018. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.04.2019 IN OP(FC)NO.199 OF 2019. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.05.2019 IN IA.NO.355/2018 IN OP 354/2013. EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.05.2019 IN I.A.NO.356/2018 IN OP 354/2013.

¶42

OP(FC) No.71/2021

¶43

-:5:-

¶44

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.597/2019 DATED 28.06.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P13 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2019 IN I.A.NO.355/2018 IN OP 354/2013. EXHIBIT P14 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08.07.2019 IN I.A.NO.356/2018 IN OP 354/2013. EXHIBIT P15 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2020 IN IA NO.742/2019 IN OP 354/2013.

Suresh M.R. v. Rinija J.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh M.R. v. Rinija J.

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

Dr. Lekshmi Prasad. M.S Vs Dr. Vivek K.B

Sadanandan Vs Sulaja

Rixon Duram Vs Charlotte Walton

Rajil Vs Asha Latha

Nidhin Joseph @ Thomas Vs Remya Thomas @ Thressiamma

Bijoy T. George Vs Riya Reji