Melevettil Bhagath vs Karthika Das
2021 Latest Caselaw 16396 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
    WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1943
                         RPFC NO. 211 OF 2020
       AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 410/2017 OF FAMILY
                     COURT,THRISSUR, THRISSUR
AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER IN M.C.410/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY
                           COURT, THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

          MELEVETTIL BHAGATH
          AGED 31 YEARS
          S/O. DR.VIJAYAKUMAR,
          PARAMPARAMBU, "KARTHIKA", JAINIMEDU,
          VADAKKANTHARA, PALAKKAD,
          PRESENTLY WORKING AT SCORPIO SHIPPING COMPANY,
          SCORPIO HOUSE, HIRANANDANI BUSINESS PARK,
          CENTRAL AVENUE, POWAI, MUMBAI-400076,
          REPRESENTED BY POA HOLDER GEETHA MELEVEETTIL,
          AGED 65 YEARS,W/O. DR.VIJAYAKUMAR, PARAMPARAMBU,
          "KARTHIKA", JAINIMEDU, VADAKKANTHARA, PALAKKAD-678012.

          BY ADVS.
          V.V.SURENDRAN
          SRI.P.A.HARISH



RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

          KARTHIKA DAS
          AGED 27 YEARS
          D/O.T.N.DAS, C/O.ABHA MENON, 14, EMERALD BUILDING,
          ST. PIUS COLONY, MULUND WEST, MUMBAI-400080,
          MAHARASHTRA, PERMANENT RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS- HOUSE
          NO.13/11A, KADAMBANAT HOUSE, PERUMBULISSERY, CHERPU,
          THRISSUR-680561.

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.JAGAN ABRAHAM M.GEORGE
          SRI.SEMEER M
          SRI.JAISON ANTONY

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

04.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
   RP(FC).No.211 of 2020
                                   2




                                  ORDER

The revision petitioner and the counsel

remained absent. There was no representation.

It is submitted that a huge amount is due by

way of arrears and inspite of the order passed

by this Court, so far it was not complied

with. Hence, the absence of the counsel

cannot be condoned.

The RP(FC) is dismissed for non-

prosecution.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE SPV