Kerala High Court
Shiny.B.Michael vs Baby Michael on 2 November, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
SATURDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1946
MAT.APPEAL NO. 156 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2019 IN I.A.NO.4006/2018 IN OP
NO.403 OF 2013 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SHINY B.MICHAEL, AGED 54 YEARS
D/O.LATE CYRIAC, THANICKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
NEELESWARAM P.O.,KALADY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK,
ERNAKULAM - 683 584.
BY ADV U.K.DEVIDAS
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
BABY MICHAEL, AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.LATE MICHAEL,THANNICKAPARABIL HOUSE, NEELEESWARAM
P.O., KALADY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM - 683 584,
NOW RESIDING AT C/O.ELDHOSE K.T.,MATTOOR P.O., MATTOOR
VILLAGE,ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM.
SRI.GEO PAUL
SMT.V.S.SIMI
SHRI.NAVEEN T.U.
SMT. JANE MARIA TOMY
SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.
SRI.C.R.PRAMOD
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.11.2024, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.182/2020, 353/2020 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:81456
MAT.APPEAL NO. 156 OF 2020 & con.cases
2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
SATURDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1946
MAT.APPEAL NO. 182 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2019 IN I.A.NO.4007/2018
IN OP NO.402 OF 2013 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SHINY.B.MICHAEL, AGED 54 YEARS
D/O.LATE CYRIAC, THANICKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
NEELEESWARAM.P.O., KALADY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK,
ERNAKULAM -683 584.
BY ADV U.K.DEVIDAS
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
BABY MICHAEL, AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.LATE MICHAEL, THANNICKAPARABIL HOUSE,
NEELEESWARAM .P.O., KALADY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK,
ERNAKULAM -683 584, NOW RESIDING AT
C/O.ELDHOSE.K.T., MATTOOR.P.O., MATTOOR VILLAGE,
ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM -683 574.
SRI.GEO PAUL
SMT.V.S.SIMI
SHRI.NAVEEN T.U.
SMT. JANE MARIA TOMY
SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.
SRI.C.R.PRAMOD
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.11.2024, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.156/2020 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:81456
MAT.APPEAL NO. 156 OF 2020 & con.cases
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
SATURDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1946
MAT.APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2019 IN I.A.NO.5239/2018
IN OP NO.2371 OF 2013 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OP NO.2371/2013:
BABY MICHAEL, AGED 53 YEARS
S/O.LATE MICHAEL, THANNIKKA PARAMBIL, NEELISWARAM,
ERNAKULAM DIST., NOW RESIDING AT C/O.ELDHOSE,
MATOOR P.O., MATOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA.
SRI.GEO PAUL
SMT.V.S.SIMI
SHRI.NAVEEN T.U.
SMT. JANE MARIA TOMY
SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P.
SRI.C.R.PRAMOD
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN OP NO.2371/2013:
SHINY, AGED 48 YEARS, D/O.LATE CYRIAC,
THANNICKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEELISWARAM P.O., KALADY,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683 584.
BY ADV SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.11.2024, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.156/2020 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:81456
MAT.APPEAL NO. 156 OF 2020 & con.cases
4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
SATURDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1946
RPFC NO. 155 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2019 IN M.P.NO.837/2018
IN MC NO.74 OF 2013 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM
REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:
1 SHINY B. MICHAEL, AGED 53 YEARS
W/O. BABY MICHAEL, THANICKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
NEW NUMBER 12/337, OLD NUMBER 6/317 B,
NEELEESWARAM P. O., KALADY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683 584.
2 GLORIA, AGED 21 YEARS
D/O. BABY MICHAEL, THANICKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
NEW NUMBER 12/337, OLD NUMBER 6/317 B,
NEELEESWARAM P. O., KALADY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683 584.
3 GLADLEE, AGED 18 YEARS
D/O. BABY MICHAEL, THANICKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
NEW NUMBER 12/337, OLD NUMBER 6/317 B,
NEELEESWARAM P. O., KALADY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683 584.
4 GLITZ, AGED 14 YEARS
D/O. BABY MICHAEL, REP. BY MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER,
SHINY B. MICHAEL, AGED 53 YEARS, W/O. BABY MICHAEL,
THANICKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEW NUMBER 12/337, OLD
NUMBER 6/317 B, NEELEESWARAM P. O., KALADY VILLAGE,
ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683 584.
2024:KER:81456
MAT.APPEAL NO. 156 OF 2020 & con.cases
5
BY ADV U.K.DEVIDAS
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
BABY MICHAEL, AGED 56 YEARS
S/O. LATE MICHAEL, THANICKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
NEELEESWARAM P. O., KALADY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683 584.
SRI.GEO PAUL
THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.11.2024, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.156/2020 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:81456
MAT.APPEAL NO. 156 OF 2020 & con.cases
6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
SATURDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1946
MAT.APPEAL NO. 723 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2019 IN I.A.NO.4008/2018
IN OP NO.1195 OF 2016 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
SHINY.B.MICHAEL, AGED 54 YEARS
D/O. LATE CYRIAC, THANICKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
NEELEESWARAM P.O., KALADY VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK,
ERNAKULAM-683 584.
BY ADV U.K.DEVIDAS
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 BABY MICHAEL, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.LATE MICHAEL,
THANNICKAPARABIL HOUSE, NEELEESWARAM P.O., KALADY
VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM-683 584.
2 BENNY, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. VADAKKUNCHERY CHERIYAN,
VADAKKUNCHERY HOUSE, MANJAPRA VILLAGE, MANJAPRA
KARA, MANJAPRA P.O., ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM -
683 581.
SRI.GEO PAUL
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.11.2024, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.156/2020 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:81456
MAT.APPEAL NO. 156 OF 2020 & con.cases
7
JUDGMENT
[Mat.Appeal Nos.156/2020, 182/2020, 353/2020,
155/2020, 723/2020]
Devan Ramachandran, J.
Though the learned counsel for the parties argued these
appeals extensively, we are now at a stage where we are able to
dispose of the matters, with the express consent of the parties.
2. Compendiously, the wife - Smt.Shiny B.Michael, filed
four original petitions - namely O.P.Nos.402/2013, 403/2013,
1195/2016 and MC No.74/2013, before the learned Family Court,
Ernakulam - against her husband, namely Sri.Baby Michael,
making various claims, including for maintenance, but they were
all dismissed for non-prosecution, on 10.09.2018.
3. Interestingly, Sri.Baby Michael had also filed O.P.
No.2371/2013 before the learned Family Court, Ernakulam,
seeking divorce from Smt.Shiny B.Michael and this was also
dismissed on 03.11.2018 for default.
4. Both parties thereupon filed applications in each of the
original petitions to set aside the dismissal and to restore the said
petitions; but which have all been dismissed by the learned
Family Court through the orders impugned in the respective
2024:KER:81456
MAT.APPEAL NO. 156 OF 2020 & con.cases
appeals and petition before us.
5. We said that the parties are in consent, in the prefatory
paragraph of this judgment because, Sri.U.K.Devidas - appearing
for Smt.Shiny B.Michael and Sri.Geo Paul - appearing for Sri.Baby
Michael, submitted that since both their parties require their
respective Original Petitions to be disposed of on its merits at the
earliest, they will not oppose each other's applications for
restoration and will co-operate with the disposal of the matters,
without seeking any avoidable adjournment, or causing any delay.
6. We have gone through the impugned orders of the
learned Family Court and must say that we cannot find any error
in the opinion or holdings of the learned Judge. He has recorded
that all the Original Petitions were scheduled to be tried jointly,
as per the specific request of both parties; but that there was no
representation on behalf of Smt.Shiny B.Michael on 31.01.2018,
02.02.2018, 07.04.2018, 19.06.2018 and finally on 10.09.2018,
when her petitions were dismissed.
7. As far as the original petition of Sri.Baby Michael is
concerned, the learned Judge has recorded that, even though an
Advocate Commissioner was deputed to record his evidence on
10.09.2018, he did not even file his proof affidavit, nor was he
2024:KER:81456
MAT.APPEAL NO. 156 OF 2020 & con.cases
prepared to adduce evidence; and therefore, that, on 03.11.2013,
there was no other option but to dismiss it, especially because he
had not filed his affidavit even on that day, nor was ready to lead
evidence.
8. Normally, therefore, we would have affirmed the
orders of the learned Family Court, finding it to be irreproachable;
but keeping in mind the salutary requirements of substantial
justice and since the law will not usually approve dismissal of
matters solely for default, we are of the view that the parties must
be given one more opportunity.
9. We record the undertaking by the learned counsel for
the parties that their clients will implicitly co-operate with the
learned Family Court for disposal of their respective Original
Petitions on its merits and will not seek any adjournment, except
in unavoidable circumstances, to be established cogently.
10. Resultantly and taking into account the above
undertakings and solely for such reason, we allow these appeals
and set aside the orders of the learned Family Court, Ernakulam
impugned in it; thus allowing the various applications filed by the
parties and restoring each of the Original Petitions, so as to
enable its disposal on merits.
2024:KER:81456
MAT.APPEAL NO. 156 OF 2020 & con.cases
11. Consequently, the learned Family Court will endevour
to dispose of all the Original Petitions together, through a joint
trial - as has been expressly agreed and admitted by the learned
counsel for the parties, after affording them necessary
opportunities, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than
one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
12. We clarify that, though, normally, we do not fix time
frames for disposal of Original Petitions before the learned Family
Courts, we choose to do so in this case, adverting to the factum of
the matters having been filed in the year 2013 and thus pending
for more than eleven years already.
We close, reiteratingly clarifying that we have not
entered into the merits of any of the rival contentions on its merits
and that all of them are left open to be decided appropriately by
the learned Family Court.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/- M.B. SNEHALATHA
JUDGE
stu
