Allowed

Subin Stephen v. Ashly Ann Jose

Kerala HC2 Dec 2022OP (FC)/646/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Under Article 227, the High Court set aside a Family Court order dismissing a prayer for early disposal of a matrimonial petition. Directing the Family Court to resolve the matter within four months of the judgment date due to the petitioner's urgent employment-related plans.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dismissing the prayer for early disposal was set aside; the Family Court is directed to dispose of the underlying petition within four months.

Subin Stephen Vs Ashly Ann Jose — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

&

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶7

OP (FC) NO. 646 OF 2021

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER OP 1242/2019 OF FAMILY COURT, PALA

¶9

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN O.P. NO. 1242/2019:

¶10

1 SUBIN STEPHEN

¶11

AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.STEPHEN M.THOMAS, MADATHIL HOUSE, CHERPUNKAL P.O.,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶12

2STEPHEN M.THOMAS
MADATHIL HOUSE, CHERPUNKAL P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADVS.
M.SANTHI (K/868/2011)
G.RANJU MOHAN

¶14

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN O.P. NO. 1242/2019:

¶15

ASHLY ANN JOSE
AGED 28 YEARS

¶16

D/O.JOSE C.LUKOSE, OTTAKKATTIL HOUSE, KAIPPUZHA P.O.,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 602.

¶17

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

O.P. (F.C.) No. 646 of 2021

¶19

¶20

ANIL K. NARENDRAN & P. G. AJITHKUMAR, JJ.

¶21

O.P. (F.C.) No. 646 of 2021

¶22

Dated this the 2^nd day of December, 2022

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

P. G. Ajithkumar, J.

¶25

This original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed by the respondents in O.P. No. 1242 of 2019 on the file of the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. The petitioner seeks to set aside Ext. P4 order dated 21.10.2021 of the Family Court, in I.A. No. 1 of 2021 in O.P. No. 1242 of 2019.

¶26

On 14.01.2022 notice on admission was directed to be served on the respondent. The petitioner was allowed to serve notice on the respondent through her learned Counsel before the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor also. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed on record a memo showing that the notice was served on the Counsel of the respondent appearing before the Family Court. The respondent did not choose to appear before this Court despite giving notice.

¶27

O.P. (F.C.) No. 646 of 2021

¶28

¶29

I.A. No. 1 of 2021 in O.P. No. 1242 of 2019, a copy of which is Ext. P5 was filed requesting the Family Court to dispose of that original petition at an early date. The Family Court dismissed that petition as per Ext. P4 order holding that since older cases were pending., O.P. No. 1242 of 2019 could not be taken up on any early date.

¶30

The petitioner’s urgency is that she came to India recently and she proposes to go abroad again in connection with her employment. She,therefore seeks expeditious disposal of O.P. No. 1242 of 2019. Pointing out that any further delay in the matter would adversely affect her carrier prospectus, she sought an early disposal of the original petition. Old cases have certainly to be given preference. However, when the urgency is pointed out and the same is appeared bonafide, there shall be an endeavour to dispose of the case as early as possible. Going by the principle laid down by this Court in Shiju Joy vs. Jisha [2021 (3) KLT 607] also it is appropriate to dispose of O.P. No 1242 of 2019 within a time frame.

¶31

In the circumstances, we are of the view that Ext. P4 order is liable to be set aside and there shall be a direction to the Family Court to dispose of O.P. No. 1242 of 2019 within a

¶32

O.P. (F.C.) No. 646 of 2021

¶33

¶34

time frame. This original petition is accordingly allowed and the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor is directed to Dispose of O.P. No. 1242 of 2019 within a period of 4 months

¶35

from the production of certified copy of this judgment.

¶36

Sd/ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶37

Sd/P. G. AJITH KUMAR JUDGE

¶38

san

¶39

O.P. (F.C.) No. 646 of 2021

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 646/2021

¶42

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶43

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF O.P.NO.1242/2019 ON THE
FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, ETTUMANOOR.

¶44

Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION ALONG WITH
COUNTER CLAIM FILED BY THE PETITIONERS
TO O.P.NO.1242/2019.

¶45

Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE
DATED 19/04/2021 PASSED BY THE ROCKLAND
COUNTRY CLERK'S OFFICE.

¶46

Exhibit P4CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
21/10/2021 IN I.A.NO.1/2021 IN
O.P.NO.1242/2019 ON THE FILES OF THE
FAMILY COURT, ETTUMANOOR.

¶47

Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN I.A 1/2021
IN O.P NO. 1242/2019 FILED BEFORE THE
FAMILY COURT, ETTUMANOOR

Subin Stephen v. Ashly Ann Jose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subin Stephen v. Ashly Ann Jose

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muhammed Amjadkhan Vs Shafna

Sivaprasad Vs Divya Prasannan

Manishkumar Vs Jisha R.Pillai

John Daniel Vs Jainy John

John Daniel Vs Jainy John

M.K. Gheevarghese Vs Mariam Gheevarghese