Allowed

Sajeev.K. v. Sushama Kumari T.G.

Kerala HC18 Oct 2022RPFC/287/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court set aside an ex-parte family court order granting maintenance, allowing the petitioner an opportunity to adduce evidence. Directed interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000 and ordered disposal within two months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; reviser directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 5000; Family Court directed to adduce evidence and dispose case within two months.

Sajeev.K. Vs Sushama Kumari T.G. — Maintenance and Alimony | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 26TH ASWINA, 1944

¶5

RPFC NO. 287 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT MC 62/2018 OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶8

SAJEEV.K. AGED 45 YEARS S/O. KARUNAKARAN V., SHYLA BHAVAN, AIVARKALA W/N PUTHANAMBALAM, P.O, KUNNATHOOR VILLAGE, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, KOLLAM-690 540. BY ADVS. B.KRISHNA MANI A.N.RETNAKARAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶10

SUSHAMA KUMARI T.G. AGED 40 YEARS D/O. GOPALAN, THOPPILMALAYIL HOUSE, VENNIKULAM P.O., VALANKARA, PURAMATTOM VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 544. BY ADV K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA)

¶11

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶12

ON 18.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

Dated this the 18^th day of October, 2022

¶16

In this Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code read with Section 19 of the Family Court Act, the Revision Petitioner who is the respondent in M.C No. 62 of 2018 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvalla, impugns order dated 26.09.2019 in the above case whereby the Family Court granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand only) to the respondent/original petitioner.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶18

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned is one passed ex-parte and the Revision petitioner/respondent who had two children in his earlier marriage, had valid contentions to address before the Family Court and therefore an opportunity may be given to the petitioner

¶19

¶20

to tender evidence in this regard.

¶21

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner herein is a person retired from the Air Force and he has been working in Canara Bank for the time being. He also submitted that the Family Court, during the pendency of this petition ordered interim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/(Rupees Five Thousand Only).

¶22

Since the order was passed ex-parte, it is necessary in the interest of justice, to provide an opportunity to the revision petitioner to adduce evidence in support of the counter affidavit, he filed before the Trial Court.

¶23

Therefore the impugned order stands set aside. However, there shall be an order for granting interim maintenance. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as interim maintenance from the date of the petition till this day and continue to pay Rs. 5,000/(Rupees Five Thousand Only) till the disposal of the M.C.

¶24

¶25

afresh by the Family Court. It is ordered that, amount if any paid by the revision petitioner shall be adjusted towards payment and the balance alone need to be paid within a period of thirty days. The parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court for adducing evidence on 18.11.2022. Considering that the matter is of the year 2018, the learned counsel for the respondent pressed for time bound disposal, therefore, there shall be a direction to the Family Court, Thiruvalla to dispose of the matter within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶26

It is specifically ordered that if the revision petitioner plays delayed tactics in adducing evidence, the Family Court is at liberty to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. Registry shall forward a copy of this order to the Family Court, Thiruvalla for information and compliance within seven days.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

¶29

SK/18.10.

Sajeev.K. v. Sushama Kumari T.G.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajeev.K. v. Sushama Kumari T.G.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Lal Kurien Vs State of Kerala

Dinesh Thomas Vs Jessymol Varghese

P.Jayarajan Vs v.Surendran

Shanil S., Vs State of Kerala

Shanil S. Vs State of Kerala

Anurani Sandeep Vs State of Kerala