Jnanakesari vs Rema
2021 Latest Caselaw 3814 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

                                   &

                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

     TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 13TH MAGHA,1942

                       OP (FC).No.400 OF 2018(R)

          AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 131/2012 DATED 24-05-2018
                      OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD


PETITIONER/S:

                JNANAKESARI, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.SUNDARAN,
                KELAMKOLUMBIL,THUMBICHIRA,
                THATHAMANGALAM VILLAGE,
                CHITTUR TALUK - 678 102.

                BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN


RESPONDENT/S:

      1         REMA, AGED 38 YEARS, W/O.JANAKESARI,
                ERATTODIL,PALLAVUR, PALLASSENA VILLAGE,
                CHITTUR TALUK-678 102.

      2         RATNAMOL, MINOR, D/O.REMA, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER
                REMA,ERATTODIL, PALLAVUR, PALLASSENA VILLAGE, CHITTUR
                TALUK-678 102.

      3         THENMOZHI, MINOR, D/O.REMA, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER
                REMA,ERATTODIL, PALLAVUR, PALLASSENA VILLAGE, CHITTUR
                TALUK-678 102.

                R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.02.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP (FC).No.400/2018                     2




                               JUDGMENT

Dated this the 2nd day of February 2021

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

This original petition was filed challenging

Ext.P1 order in different applications filed by the

respondents to execute the order of maintenance in

M.C.No.131/2012. The petitioner raised objection on

the ground that he was physically ill and therefore,

he was not in a position to honour the order of

maintenance. Overruling the objection, the impugned

order was passed. This Court in fact at the time of

admission directed the petitioner to pay

Rs.1,00,000/-. The above order seems not complied by

the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that he has no instructions from the

petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents

submitted that the petitioner is no more.

In the light of the submission by the learned

counsel for the respondents, nothing further

survives in this original petition. Accordingly, we

dismiss the original petition.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS

JUDGE

ln

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/05/2018 IN CRL.MP.NO.1087/2013, 842/2014, 799/2015 & 997/2016 IN MC.NO.131/2012 OF THE FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD.

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07/09/2016 IN CRL.MC.1896/2016 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 05/05/2018.

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORDS RELATING TO THE PETITIONER DATED 24/08/2016.

EXHINIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 14/10/2016.

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 30/06/2018.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE