Kerala High Court
Sanil John @ Cheriyil Sanal John vs Princy Ninan @Chacko P Abraham on 1 July, 2024
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE C.S. SUDHA
MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2024 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1946
RP NO. 511 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN Mat.Appeal NO.862 OF 2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT:
1 SANIL JOHN @ CHERIYIL SANAL JOHN
AGED 32 YEARS
SANGOOR HOUSE NANNUVAKKADU PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645
2 FR.SAM GEORGE
AGED 60 YEARS
MAR KURIAKOSE ASHRAM MYLAPRA PO PATHANAMTHITTTA, PIN -
689678
3 SAJI GEORGE
AGED 55 YEARS
SANGOOR HOUSE NANNUVAKKADU PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645
4 ANI SAJI
AGED 50 YEARS
SANGOOR HOUSE NANNUVAKKADU PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645
BY ADVS.
JOHNY K.GEORGE
ATHULYA MARTIN
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:
PRINCY NINAN @CHACKO P ABRAHAM
AGED 29 YEARS
D/O NINAN ISAAC PRINCY VILLA PANNIYALI MURI OMALLUR VILLAGE
OMALLUR PO PATHANAMTHITTA-689647 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER CHACKO P ABRAHAM PALLIKIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE
KARITHOTTA P.O. KOZHENCHERRY PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689514
(CHACKO P ABRAHAM,PALLIKIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE,PERUNNA
P.O.,CHANGANACHERRY,KOTTAYAM., PIN - 686102
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.07.2024, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RP NO. 511 OF 2024
2
JUDGMENT
C.S Sudha, J.
This Court vide judgment 2.11.2023 disposed of the
Matrimonial appeal No.862 of 2022 in the following manner:
3. The only point that arises for consideration in this case is
whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the family court
calling for an interference by this Court.
4. Heard both sides.
5. Pursuant to the impugned judgment and decree,
E.P.No.29/2022 has been moved by the petitioner/wife. Notice
in this appeal has been served on the counsel appearing for the
petitioner/wife in the E.P. Memo to the said effect has been
filed. The petitioner/wife has not entered appearance and hence
we proceed to consider the appeal.
6. According to the respondent, when the matter had come up
for evidence before the family court, a request for adjournment
was made on the ground that his counsel was laid up. However,
the family court did not entertain the request and proceeded
with the case, set the respondent ex parte and passed the
impugned judgment. The respondents have been directed to
pay an amount of ₹52,98,026/- to the petitioner towards the
gold ornaments and money alleged to be due to her. Interest of
justice requires that the respondents be given an opportunity to
contest and obtain an order on merits. Therefore we are of the
opinion that the impugned judgement and decree is liable to be
set aside, however, on payment of cost of ₹10,000/- within a
period of one month from the date of this order. We make it
clear that if the amount of ₹10,000/- is not paid by the
respondents to the petitioner/wife within a period of one month
from the date of this order, the appeal shall stand dismissed.
2. Thereafter, an IA No.1 of 2024 was filed seeking
modification of the order for payment of the cost of Rs.10,000/- to
the counsel instead of the respondent, wife which was declined.
Now the Review petition has been filed on the premise that twice
RP NO. 511 OF 2024
the amount of Rs.10,000/- was sent through DD to the respondent
but the same has been refused. Even the counsel also refused. In
such circumstances, the predicament of the review petitioner /
husband is writ large. It has also been stated that an attempt was
made to deposit the amount in Court but the Court refused the
same as there was no intimation in this matter.
In this view of the matter, we thus modify our order and
clarify that the cost imposed by us in such circumstances is
permitted to be deposited in the trial court where the matrimonial
matter bearing OP No.89 of 2021 is stated to be pending, within a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Review petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
Sd/-
sab C.S. SUDHA
JUDGE
