Disposed

Sandhya Madhavan v. Santhosh Vasudevan

Kerala HC22 May 2024OP (FC)/329/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the Family Court to consider an application challenging the maintainability of a divorce petition and to pass appropriate orders before proceeding with the trial, staying the summons to the minor child in the interim.

What did the court decide?

Directive to Family Court to consider maintainability application before trial; trial proceedings stayed pending orders.

Sandhya Madhavan Vs Santhosh Vasudevan — Child Custody and Guardianship | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V &

¶2

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICEP.M.MANOJ
WEDNESDAY,THE22NDDAYOFMAY2024/1STJYAISHTA,1946
OP(FC)NO.329OF2024

¶3

AGAINSTTHEOPDIVNO.3026OF2021OFFAMILY
COURT,ERNAKULAM

¶4

PETITIONER/FIRSTRESPONDENT:

¶5

SANDHYAMADHAVAN
AGED46YEARS
FLATNO8B,PVSIRISAPARTMENTS,DESOMPO,ALUVA,
PIN-683102

¶6

BYADVS.
K.H.ASIF
C.A.MAJEED
MOLTYMAJEED
P.B.UNNIKRISHNANNAIR
SHERINBIJU

¶7

RESPONDENT/FIRST PETITIONER:

¶8

SANTHOSHVASUDEVAN
AGED50YEARS

¶9

FLATNOA-31,VANCHINADUVILLAGEAPARTMENTS,
PADAMUGALPO,KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM,PIN-682030

¶10

THISOP(FAMILYCOURT)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
22.05.2024,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE
FOLLOWING:

¶11

OP(FC) No.329 of 2024

¶12

¶13

J U D G M E N T

¶14

Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.

¶15

The petitioner is the wife of the respondent herein. She has been arrayed as the respondent in O.P. (Div) No. 3026 of 2021 on the file of the Family Court, Ernakulam.

¶16

This petition is filed seeking a declaration that the aforesaid Original Petition is not maintainable under law and to quash the summons issued to the minor child of the petitioner to appear before the Family Court and to tender evidence.

¶17

According to the petitioner, the respondent herein had earlier filed O.P.No.2386/2020 before the Family Court seeking custody of the minor child. The matter was referred to the Lok Adalat for mediation and the parties were able to settle the disputes and Ext.P1 award was passed. Based on the award passed, the Family Court has disposed of the matter by judgment and decree dated 15.3.2022. Instead of complying with the terms of the judgment and decree, the respondent has instituted O.P. (Div) No. 3026/2021 before the Family Court seeking various reliefs. The petitioner contends that she has preferred Ext.P7 objection before the Family Court and has also preferred I.A.No.3 of 2023 on 15.6.2023 seeking to hear the maintainability of the petition filed by the

¶18

OP(FC) No.329 of 2024

¶19

¶20

respondent. According to the petitioner, in view of the law laid down in Benny v Mini¹ , the Family Court was bound to consider the application and pass appropriate orders. However, without passing orders on the application, the Family Court is proceeding with the trial of O.P (Div) No. 3026 of 2021 filed by the respondent. It is contended that to cause hardship to the petitioner and her minor daughter, an application has been filed to summon the daughter to tender evidence before the court. It is contended that serious hardship would be caused if the Family Court proceeds with the matter, without passing orders on the maintainability of the petition.

¶21

We have heard Sri. Asif K.H., the learned counsel appearing for the

¶22

petitioner.

¶23

We find that on receipt of notice in O.P (Div) No. 3026 of 2021, the petitioner has already filed his objection and also filed an application challenging the very maintainability. This application was filed relying on the law laid down in

¶24

Benny (supra). Having considered the submissions, without expressing any opinion on the merits or otherwise of the application filed by the petitioner before the Family Court, we are of the view that it would be appropriate to direct the Family Court to consider and pass appropriate orders in I.A.No.3 of 2023 before proceeding with the trial in O.P. (Div) No.3026 of 2021. In that view of

¶25

1 2021 (1) KHC 723

¶26

OP(FC) No.329 of 2024

¶27

¶28

the matter, we do not propose to issue notice to the respondent herein.

¶29

Resultantly, this petition is disposed of directing the Family Court to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders in I.A. No. 3 of 2023 with notice to the petitioner as well as the respondent. Order shall be passed within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Until orders are passed, the trial proceedings in the O.P. (Div) No.3026 of 2021 shall be kept in abeyance.

¶30

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶31

Sd/- P.M.MANOJ JUDGE

¶32

APM/22/05/2024

¶33

OP(FC) No.329 of 2024

¶34

¶35

APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 329/2024

¶36

`PETITIONER EXHIBI`	`TS`
`Exhibit .P-1`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED` `THE LOK ADALAT (DLSA, ERNAKULAM`	`09/09/` `)`	`2021`	`OF`
`Exhibit.P-2`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DA` `IN OP 2386/2020 OF THE HON'BLE` `ERNAKULAM`	`TED 15/` `FAMILY`	`03/2` `COU`	`022` `RT,`
`Exhibit.P-3`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED` `OP` `2386/2020` `OF` `THE` `HON'BLE` `ERNAKULAM`	`15/03/` `FAMILY`	`2022` `COU`	`IN` `RT,`
`Exhibit.P-4`	`A` `TRUE` `COPY` `OF` `THE` `PROCE` `02/02/2024` `OF` `THE` `HON'BLE` `ERNAKULAM, IN OP 3036/2021`	`EDINGS` `FAMILY`	`DA` `COU`	`TED` `RT,`
`Exhibit.P-5`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DA` `ISSUED` `BY` `THE` `HON'BLE` `FAMILY` `3026/2021`	`TED 27/` `COURT`	`03/2` `IN`	`024` `OP`
`Exhibit.P-6`	`A` `TRUE` `COPY` `OF` `THE` `ORIGINAL P` `3026/2021`	`ETITION`	`IN`	`OP`
`Exhibit.P-7`	`A` `TRUE` `COPY` `OF` `THE` `OBJECTION` `RESPONDENT` `IN` `OP` `3026/2021` `PETITIONER HEREIN`	`FILED` `WHO` `I`	`BY` `S`	`THE` `THE`
`Exhibit.P-8`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IA` `3026/2021 DATED 16/06/2023`	`3/2023`	`IN`	`OP`

Sandhya Madhavan v. Santhosh Vasudevan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandhya Madhavan v. Santhosh Vasudevan

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

Abdul Rasheed Vs Khairunneesa

Biju T.A Vs Superintendent of Police

Nija M.S Vs the State of Kerala

Sonia Baby Vs Nibin M Mani

Nayana S Vs Anurag

A.J.Stephen Vs Rosemariya