Kerala High Court
Rajagopala Rao vs R Bhanumathy on 22 October, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
2024:KER:78291
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 30TH ASWINA, 1946
OP (FC) NO. 641 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.5/2024 IN
OP NO.1429 OF 2023, FAMILY COURT, PUNALUR
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN I.A. & O.P.:
RAJAGOPALA RAO, AGED 76 YEARS
S/O KRISHNAMOORTHI RAO,
CHETTIYAMVILA VEEDU,
NEAR TRINITY MARTHOMA PARSONAGE,
MANJAKKALA P.O., PARANKIMAMMUKAL,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.
NOW RESIDING AT:-
GOPALAVILASOM VEEDU,
PIDAVOOR P.O., PIDAVOOR VILLAGE,
PATHANAPURAM TALUK,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691625.
BY ADVS.
K.V.ANIL KUMAR
RADHIKA S.ANIL
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN I.A & O.P:
R BHANUMATHY, AGED 65 YEARS
W/O G.K. RAJAGOPALA RAO,
GOPALAVILASOM VEEDU, PIDAVOOR P.O.,
2024:KER:78291
OP (FC) NO. 641 OF 2024
-2-
PIDAVOOR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAMTALUK,
KOLLAM DISTRICT
NOW RESIDING AT:- A1, NIVINS APARTMENTS,
THATANVILA LANE, THAMALAM P.O., POOJAPPURA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695012.
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 22.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:78291
OP (FC) NO. 641 OF 2024
-3-
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 order of
the learned Family Court, Punalur, which allowed
I.A.No.5/2024 in OP(Others) No.1429/2023 filed
by the respondent, seeking an amendment of her
pleadings, by substituting the reliefs and
modifying the schedule of gold ornaments;
further making a claim on some ornaments kept in
a joint locker of the parties.
2. As evident from Ext.P5, the learned
Family Court proceeded to allow the application
without any objections being seen filed by the
respondent; but when this matter was argued
today, Smt.Radhika S.Anil - learned counsel for
the petitioner, submitted that Ext.P4 objections
2024:KER:78291
OP (FC) NO. 641 OF 2024
had, in fact, been filed, but which had not been
adverted to by the learned Court. She thus
prayed that Ext.P5 be set aside.
3. We have examined Ext.P5 and notice
that, apart from the reason cited by the learned
Family Court - that no objections had been filed
- it has gone into the merits of the
respondent's application, to hold that the
amendments are necessary for the proper disposal
of the case.
4. In fact, when one reads Ext.P4
objections stated to have been filed by the
petitioner before the learned Family Court -
even though we find no reason to disbelieve the
learned Judge in recording that no such
objections were filed - the only contention
impelled is that the amendments will change the
2024:KER:78291
OP (FC) NO. 641 OF 2024
nature of the Original Petition and that what
has been stated therein is incorrect.
5. It is without requirement to
restate that, when applications for amendments
are considered by the learned Family Court, it
is not expected to go through the veracity of
the merits of the averments, but only whether it
is necessary for the disposal of the proceeding
before it.
6. As far as this case is concerned,
the learned Family Court has entered into a
conclusion that the amendments are necessary for
the proper disposal; and this is because, the
original claim of the respondent - wife was with
respect to gold, and all she has attempted,
through the amendments, is to incorporate a
modified relief staking claim over some
2024:KER:78291
OP (FC) NO. 641 OF 2024
ornaments which are in a joint locker. Whether
this is right or wrong is a matter of evidence,
which certainly, the petitioner has full liberty
to establish in any manner that is legally
permissible.
7. To paraphrase, merely because the
amendment application is allowed, it does not
mean that the averments in it are true, or that
the reliefs are liable to be granted. These are
matters which the learned Family Court will
decide in its proper perspective, after the
parties lead evidence.
In the afore circumstances, we see no
reason to set aside Ext.P5 and consequently
close this Original Petition; however, with
every other liberty, including the ones
mentioned above, being fully reserved to the
2024:KER:78291
OP (FC) NO. 641 OF 2024
parties, for which purpose, we further clarify
that we have not entered into the merits of any
of the other rival contentions.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B.SNEHALATHA
akv JUDGE
2024:KER:78291
OP (FC) NO. 641 OF 2024
APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 641/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE O.P. (OTHERS) NO.
468 / 2021 OF THE FAMILY COURT,
KOTTARAKARA DATED 13.12.2021
EXHIBIT-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
ALONG WITH COUNTER CLAIM IN O.P.
(OTHERS) NO. 468 / 2021 OF THE FAMILY
COURT, KOTTARAKARA
EXHIBIT-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. NO. 5 / 2024
IN O.P. (OTHERS) NO. 1429 / 2023 OF
THE FAMILY COURT, PUNALUR
EXHIBIT-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN OBJECTION
IN I.A. NO. 5 / 2024 IN O.P. (OTHERS)
NO. 1429 / 2023 OF THE FAMILY COURT,
PUNALUR
EXHIBIT-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
14.02.2024 IN I.A. NO. 5 / 2024 IN
O.P. (OTHERS) NO. 1429/ 2024 OF THE
FAMILY COURT, PUNALUR
