E.P.Jayaprakash vs Sheney P
2023 Latest Caselaw 5800 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
 WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 3RD JYAISHTA, 1945
                       OP(CRL.) NO. 363 OF 2023
               MC 10/2023 OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA
PETITIONER/S:

               E.P.JAYAPRAKASH
               AGED 54 YEARS
               S/O. V.P.PADMANABHAN NAIR, AMIRITHA SAGAR,
               THENIPALAM P.O. KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673636
               BY ADVS.
               MANU GOVIND
               A.JAYASANKAR

RESPONDENT/S:

    1          SHENEY P.
               AGED 45 YEARS
               W/O. JAYAPRAKASH ANJALI VEETTIL, THUVAYOOR
               SOUTH MURI, KADAMBANAD VILLAGE, ADOOR 691552
               PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691552
    2          AMRUTHA JAYAPRAKASH
               AGED 25 YEARS
               D/O. JAYAPRAKASH ANJALI VEETTIL, THUVAYOOR
               SOUTH MURI, KADAMBANAD VILLAGE, ADOOR 691552
               PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691552
               BY ADVS.
               JACOB P. ALEX
               JOSEPH P.ALEX(K/1-C/2002)
               MANU SANKAR P.(K/000823/2018)
               AMAL AMIR ALI(K/000773/2019)


        THIS    OP   (CRIMINAL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
24.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 O.P.(Crl.) No.363 of 2023

                                       -2-




                                 JUDGMENT

Dated this the 24th day of May, 2023

The short question arising for consideration

is whether the parties to a litigation before the

Family Court are entitled for legible copies of

the depositions. The Family Court, Thiruvalla is

of opinion that the parties are not entitled for

legible copies. Therefore, the petitioner's

request in that regard was dismissed by Ext.P5

order.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner drew

attention to Exts.P2 and P3 copies of depositions

to submit that it is impossible to read and

understand the contents of the testimony.

3. Having gone through Exts.P2 and P3, I

find the submission to be well founded. Even

otherwise, the position is well settled that, on O.P.(Crl.) No.363 of 2023

request, the parties should be issued with

legible copies of the deposition (see Suseelan v.

State of Kerala [2013 (4) KHC 897]).

4. Learned Counsel for the respondents

submitted that the maintenance case was

originally filed before the Family court,

Pathanmthitta and transferred to the Family

Court, Thiruvalla with a direction to decide the

matter in a time bound manner. By reason of the

original petition and the interim order, the

final decision in the MC got unduly delayed.

5. In my opinion, further delay could have

been avoided if legible copies were issued in a

time bound manner.

The original petition is disposed of with a

direction to the Family Court to issue legible

copies of the deposition, within two weeks of

receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Family

Court shall also take earnest efforts to dispose O.P.(Crl.) No.363 of 2023

of the maintenance case within one month of

issuance of legible copies.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE Scl/ O.P.(Crl.) No.363 of 2023

APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 363/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A COPY OF THE MC 89 OF 2018 AS FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF RW1 IN MC NO. 10 OF 2023 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF RW2 IN MC NO. 10 OF 2023 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA Exhibit P4 A COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 28.03.2023

OF 2023 IN MC NO. 10 OF 2023