Bindu vs Jojo
2021 Latest Caselaw 7077 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

                                  &

         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

     MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                         OP (FC).No.7 OF 2020

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.10.2019 IN IA 1420/2019 IN OP 531/2016
                  OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA


PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

             BINDU
             AGED 43 YEARS
             W/O. KALLELI JOJO, THUMBAKODE DESOM, PARIYARAM
             VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY P.O.,
             CHALAKUDY TALUK, PIN-680 721

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.SAIJO HASSAN
             SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN
             SRI.RAFEEK. V.K.
             SRI.U.M.HASSAN
             SMT.P.PARVATHY
             SMT.SURYA P SHAJI
             SHRI.MANAS P HAMEED
             SHRI.GAUTHAM MOHAN H.

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

             JOJO
             AGED 51 YEARS
             S/O. KALLELI DEVASSYKUTTY, THUMBAKODE DESOM,
             PARIYARAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY P.O., CHALAKUDY
             TALUK, PIN-680 721

              BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ

     THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON      01-03-
2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 O.P.(FC).No.7/2020
                                        2


                                     JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of March 2021

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J

This original petition was filed by the petitioner in

O.P.No.531/2016, aggrieved by the order dismissing

I.A.No.1420/2019 filed by the petitioner for striking off

the defence of the respondent.

The petitioner filed the above application stating that

the respondent failed to honour the payment of maintenance

pursuant to the direction in M.C.No.125/2016. The Family

Court observed that the order in MC was set aside by this

Court as per order dated 22.3.2018. It was further

observed that the non compliance of the order can very well

be redressed in parallel proceedings and that cannot be a

ground to strike off the defence of the respondent.

We do not find any jurisdictional error committed by

the Family Court warranting interference, in exercise of

our powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Hence, this original petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

Sd/-

                 True copy                  Dr. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE
kp                   P.A. To Judge
 O.P.(FC).No.7/2020




                         APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1           TRUE COPY OF PETITION IN O.P.531/2016 FILED

BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA

EXHIBIT P2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.03.2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN RP(FC) NO.200/2017

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN I.A.1420/2019 IN O.P 531/2016

EXHIBIT P4 CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER 30.10.2019 IN IA 1420/2019 IN OP 531/2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA