Bhasi vs Rema M.T
2023 Latest Caselaw 2186 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
     FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 21ST MAGHA, 1944
                      OP(CRL.) NO. 677 OF 2017
              MC 196/2014 OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

            BHASI, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. LATE SANKARAN,NADUVIL HOUSE,
            VALLACHIRA DESOM & P.O.,CHERPU VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK
            - 680 562.

            BY ADVS.SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR
            SMT.V.SHYLAJA


RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

    1       REMA M.T., AGED 38 YEARS, W/O. BHASI, D/O. LATE
            THANKAPPAN, MULLEKATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE,POOMANGALAM
            VILLAGE, EDAKKULAM DESOM,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK - 691 585.

    2       AMRITHAVARSHINI MINOR
            D/O. REMA, MULLEKATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE,POOMANGALAM
            VILLAGE, EDAKKULAM DESOM,MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK 691585

    3       AMARNATH MINOR, S/O. REMA, MULLEKATTUPARAMBIL
            HOUSE,POOMANGALAM VILLAGE, EDAKKULAM DESOM,MUKUNDAPURAM
            TALUK (MINORS ARE REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN
            REMA 1ST RESPONDENT) 691585

            BY ADVS.SMT.DHANYA P.ASHOKAN
            SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL


     THIS    OP   (CRIMINAL)   HAVING    COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
10.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 O.P.(Crl) No.677/2017

                                -:2:-

                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 10th day of February, 2023

Ext.P6 order dismissing an application to set aside an

exparte order is under challenge in this original peition.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The petitioner is the respondent in MC No.196/2014

on the file of the Family Court, Irinjalakkuda. The MC has been

filed to enhance the quantum of maintenance already allowed in

earlier MC No.18/2012. M.C.No.196/2014 was allowed exparte.

Thus, the petitioner filed M.P.No.524/2017 to set aside the

exparte order. However, there was a delay in preferring the said

petition. Hence, the court below dismissed MP No.524/17 on the

ground that no petition to condone delay was filed.

I see no illegality or impropriety in the said order.

Accordingly, the original petition is dismissed.

sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE kp O.P.(Crl) No.677/2017

APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 677/2017

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN M.C NO.

196/2014 DATED IN THE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE M.P NO. 626/2016 IN M.C NO. 196/2014 DATED IN THE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.P NO.

626/2016 IN M.C NO.196/2014.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE M.P NO. 524/2017 IN M.C NO. 196/2014 DATED IN THE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN M.P NO.

524/2017 IN M.C 196/2014.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COYP OF THE ORDER IN M.P NO.

524/2017 IN M.C NO. 196/2014 DATED IN THE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA.