Meenoth Padmanabhan vs Vimoj Kumar
2021 Latest Caselaw 8660 Ker

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

                              &

     THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                    OP (FC).No.14 OF 2020

   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 511/2019 OF FAMILY
                    COURT, THALASSERY


PETITIONER:

              MEENOTH PADMANABHAN, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O
              MEENOTH RAMAN, REENA NIVAS, PAREEKKADAVU ROAD,
              DHARMADAM AMSOM, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR
              DISTRICT.

              BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN

RESPONDENT:

              VIMOJ KUMAR, S/O MEENOTH PADMANABHAN,
              CHITHRALAYAM, THALASSERY AMSOM, VADIKKAKAM
              DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 101.


     THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16-03-2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 OP (FC).No.14 OF 2020

                                ..2..




                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 16th day of March 2021

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J

This original petition was filed challenging the

order in an application to consider the

maintainability of O.P. No. 511 of 2019 on the file of the Family court, Thalassery. The petitioner

raised a preliminary issue as to the maintainability

of the petition. The Court postponed the decision

stating that it can be decided only after adducing

evidence.

2. The Court can only decide the

maintainability at the threshold itself, if it is

only a pure question of law. Here in this case, the

question raised by the petitioner is a mixed

question of facts and law. The petitioner's case is

that the petition filed by the respondent before the

Family Court does not disclose a marital dispute.

The main prayer of the respondent before the Family OP (FC).No.14 OF 2020

..3..

Court is to declare that he is the legitimate son of

the petitioner.

In such circumstances, we are of the view that

such question can only be decided after adducing

evidence and the Family Court has rightly postponed

the decision at the time of final hearing. We are

not inclined to interfere with such an order

invoking the powers under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India. Accordingly, this original

petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

JUDGE

PR OP (FC).No.14 OF 2020

..4..

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OP NO 511/2019 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO 1148/2019 IN O.P.NO 511/2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2019 IN IA NO 1148/2019 IN O.P.NO 511/2019 OF FAMILY COURT, THALASSERY