Sakthidharan vs Bhanumathi
2021 Latest Caselaw 1059 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 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 22TH POUSHA, 1942

                  OP (FC).No.574 OF 2016(R)

 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 1866/2015 DATED 10-08-
              2016 OF FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR


PETITIONER:

              SAKTHIDHARAN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN,
              VADAKKUMCHERRY HOUSE,KANNAMPALLIPPURAM
              DESOMCHENDRAPPINNI VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK

              BY ADV. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR

RESPONDENT:

              BHANUMATHI, AGED 58 YEARS,D/O. VELAYUDHA,
              VETTIYATTIL HOUSEKODANNUR DESOM,PARALAM
              VILLAGETHRISSUR TALUK 680 563

              R1 BY ADV. SMT.R.RAJITHA
              R1 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL
              R1 BY ADV. SMT.VINAYA V.NAIR

     THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
14-03-2017, THE COURT ON 12-01-2021 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 OP (FC).No.574 OF 2016(R)

                               ..2..




                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 12th day of January 2021

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J

This original petition was filed challenging the order in

I.A. No. 697/2016 in O.P. No. 1866/2015 on the file of Family

Court, Thrissur. The above application was filed for interim

maintenance and also for the litigation expenses by the

respondent in the original petition. The original petition was

filed by the petitioner herein seeking to declare the marriage

between him and the respondent herein as null and void. That

was allowed directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.

10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards the litigation

expenses and Rs.4,000/- (Rupess Four Thousand only) towards

monthly interim maintenance.

2. This original petition is pending before this Court OP (FC).No.574 OF 2016(R)

..3..

from 2016 onwards.

3. The petitioner's case is that the original petition itself

was filed for declaration of the marriage as null and void. The

Family Court, noting that the respondent has no source of

income of her own, directed the petitioner to pay the litigation

expenses and maintenance to her.

We do not find any error with the impugned order.

There was no stay against the operation of the order. Perhaps,

the order itself has been worked out. Accordingly, this original

petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS

JUDGE

PR OP (FC).No.574 OF 2016(R)

..4..

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID PETITION DATED 10-02-2016

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 22-04-2016

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1-08-