Allowed

Dinesh Thomas v. Jessymol Varghese

Kerala HC17 Oct 2022RPFC/297/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision petition under the Family Courts Act, the High Court of Kerala set aside an ex-parte order granting maintenance. The Court provided the petitioner an opportunity to defend and directed interim maintenance be paid. The Family Court was directed to dispose of the main petition on merits within two months. The application is classified as property/title and civil procedure.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; interim maintenance of Rs.3,000/month ordered from petitioner; main petition remanded for disposal on merits within two months.

Dinesh Thomas Vs Jessymol Varghese — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022/25TH ASWINA, 1944

¶5

RPFC NO.297 OF 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 19.10.2017 IN MC NO.13/2017 OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶8

DINESH THOMAS, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.LATE THOMAS, CHELAMANNIL VEEDU, CHEERAMCHIRA P.O., CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.S.R.SREEJITH

¶10

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

¶11

1 JESSYMOL VARGHESE, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.CHACKO VARGHESE, VALIYA VEEDU, ALUMTHURTHY P.O., KAVUMBHAGAM, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689104.

¶12

2 HANNA DINESH, D/O.JESSYMOL VARGHESE, MINOR, VALIYA VEEDU, ALUMTHURTHY P.O., KAVUMBHAGAM, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689104.

¶13

REPRESENTED BY MOTHER JESSYMOL VARGHESE, VALIYA VEEDU, ALUMTHURTHY P.O, KAVUMBHAGAM, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689104.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA SRI.V.K.NANDAKUMARAN

¶15

THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

RPFC No.297 of 2018

¶17

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

In this revision petition filed under

¶20

Section 19(4) and 19(5) of the Family Courts

¶21

Act, 1984, the revision petitioner, who is the respondent in M.C.No.13/2017 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvalla, impugns order in the above M.C. dated 19.10.2017.

¶22

The respondents herein are the

¶23

petitioners in the above M.C.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the

¶25

revision petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶26

It is submitted by the learned counsel

¶27

for the revision petitioner that an ex-parte order was passed in the absence of the revision

¶28

petitioner and the petitioner has valid contentions in the matter of grant of maintenance and, therefore, an opportunity shall be given to the revision petitioner to adduce his evidence, after setting aside the order impugned.

¶29

RPFC No.297 of 2018

¶30

¶31

learned counsel for the petitioner that the revision petitioner is person having MBA degree and he has been doing sales and marketing executive and has been getting Rs.30,0000/- and more and, therefore, a meager sum of Rs.8000/(Rs.4,500 + Rs.3,500/-) granted as per the order impugned is on lower side and, therefore, even though the order is an ex-parte one, there

¶32

is no reason to interfere the same. Accordingly, he pressed for confirming the order.

¶33

Admittedly, the order impugned is an ex-parte order. In the order, there is mention as regards to the educational qualification of the revision petitioner as MBA holder and his

¶34

job as a sales and marketing executive.

¶35

However, the learned Family Court Judge passed

¶36

the order since the revision petitioner failed to contest the matter.

¶37

In view of the above, I am inclined to

¶38

RPFC No.297 of 2018

¶39

¶40

set aside the order to provide the revision petitioner an opportunity to defend the matter after filing objection. Accordingly, the order stands set aside.

¶41

the respondents herein, who are the claimants in the M.C., are wife, aged 26 years, and minor child (during 2017) and, therefore, in the interest of justice, it is necessary to pass an interim order to pay interim maintenance

¶42

starting from the date of petition onwards.

¶43

In view of the matter, it is ordered

¶44

that the revision petitioner shall deposit the amount accumulated at the rate of Rs.3,000/each starting from the date of petition, within a period of 30 days from today. On failure, to

¶45

do so, the Family Court is at liberty to

¶46

proceed with application, if any, filed by the

¶47

respondents in accordance with law, for realisation of the said amount.

¶48

Since the matter is of the year 2017,

¶49

RPFC No.297 of 2018

¶50

¶51

the learned Family Court Judge is directed to dispose of M.C.No.13/2017 itself on merits, within a period of two months from today, after providing an opportunity to the revision petitioner to file objection and adduce evidence, if any.

¶52

It is made clear that if the revision petitioner plays delayed tactics in the matter of filing objection or to adduce evidence, the Family Court is at liberty to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

¶53

Parties are directed to appear before the Family Court, Thiruvalla on 16.11.2022 at 11:00 a.m.

¶54

Registry is directed to communicate the matter to the Family Court, Thiruvalla within seven days, for information and compliance.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

A.BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE.

¶57

Dinesh Thomas v. Jessymol Varghese

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Thomas v. Jessymol Varghese

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

Ambika C.R Vs a. Balakrishnan

A.M.Kuriakose Vs State of Kerala

M.P. Balakrishnan Vs Raveena Mahesh

Dr. Lal Kurien Vs State of Kerala

P.Jayarajan Vs v.Surendran

Ashraf.P.K Vs Nk Panicker @ N Krishna Panicker