Kerala High Court
Krishnaprasad P.C vs Sreelatha G on 25 October, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
O.P(FC) No.357 of 2024 1
2024:KER:79592
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1946
OP (FC) NO.357 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2024 IN I.A.NO.4 OF 2023 IN
DATED IN OP(OTHERS) NO.109 OF 2023 OF FAMILY COURT,
MAVELIKKARA
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
KRISHNAPRASAD P.C., AGED 60 YEARS
S/O.CHELLAPPAN, KAMALALAYAM VEEDU, BHUDHANOOR P.O
CHENGANOOR,ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 689510
BY ADVS.
ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW
NEENA ELISABATH ANTONY
RESPONDENT/COUNTER PETITIONER:
SREELATHA G., AGED 51 YEARS, W/O KRISHNAPRASAD,
KAMALALAYAM VEEDU, BHUDHANOOR MURI, ENNAKKAD
VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT ANASWARA VEEDU, EREZHA
NORTH, CHETTIKULANGARA, KANIMANGALAM
VILLAGE,MAVELIKARA TALUK,ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690106
BY ADV ROY CHACKO
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25.10.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
O.P(FC) No.357 of 2024 2
2024:KER:79592
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
Even though the petitioner challenges Exts.P5 & P8 orders
of the learned Family Court, Mavelikkara, what he effectively
assails is the latter order because, that is the one issued in an
application filed by him to review Ext.P5 order.
2. Sri.Rinny Stephen Chamaparampil - learned Counsel for
the petitioner, argued that Ext.P5 is untenable in law because, it
has been issued without adverting to Ext.P4 objections filed by
his client; and that this is exacerbated because, even when the
petitioner moved I.A.No.4 of 2023, seeking to review the same,
it has been rejected by Ext.P8, again, without adverting to such
objections. He thus prayed that Ext.P8 be set aside and the
application for review be directed to be reconsidered, without
any avoidable delay.
3. Sri.Roy Chacko - learned Counsel appearing for the
respondent, refuted to the afore submissions, saying that Ext.P4
objections were never part of records and that this is manifest
2024:KER:79592
from the fact that, even when I.A.No.4 of 2023 - from which
Ext.P8 order emanates - was argued, the petitioner never had a
case that any such had been filed. He thus prayed that this O.P
be dismissed; arguing that, in any event, even on the merits of
the matter, his client is entailed to maintenance pendente lite,
because it is claimed under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage
Act.
4. We do not propose to enter into the merits of the rival
contentions of the parties because, it is without doubt that
Ext.P5 order was issued on 18.09.2023, recording that no
objections had been filed by the petitioner herein. Interestingly,
when Ext.P8 order was issued thereafter on 16.03.2024, there
is again no mention about any such objections; and for this, at
least peripherally, we would place blame on the petitioner
himself, for not having brought it to the notice of the Court.
5. Even before this Court, there was great confusion as to
whether any such objections had, in fact, been filed; and we,
therefore, had to call for a report from the learned Family Court,
2024:KER:79592
which is now available with us.
6. The Office of the learned Family Court informs us that
the objections to I.A.No.2 of 2023 had been filed by the
petitioner herein on 16.09.2023 evening; but that this was not
noticed on 18.09.2023 and not brought to its notice by his
learned Counsel.
7. Obviously, therefore, this is a matter in which we must
intervene and set right the obvious errors; but we cannot find
the learned Family Court in error in any manner, because it was
up to the parties to bring all relevant aspects to its notice
appositely.
In the above circumstances, we allow this Original Petition
and set aside Ext.P8, however, clarifying that we are not doing
so evaluating its merit, but only to have its reconsideration done
by the learned Family Court; with a consequential direction to it,
to take up I.A.No.4 of 2023 again and dispose it of, adverting to
Ext.P4 objections also, thus culminating in an appropriate order,
after affording necessary opportunities to both sides, as
2024:KER:79592
expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two weeks from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B.SNEHALATHA
JUDGE
sp/25/10/2024
2024:KER:79592
APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 357/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
MARRIAGE DATED 20/03/2017 ISSUED BY THE
MARRIAGE OFFICER, MAVALIKARA
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION IN
O.P.(OTHERS)NO.109/2023 OF THE FAMILY
COURT, MAVELIKARA
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.2/2023 IN O.P.
(OTHERS)NO.109/2023 OF THE FAMILY COURT,
MAVELIKARA
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER TO I.A.NO.2/2023 IN O.P.
(OTHERS)NO.109/2023 OF THE FAMILY COURT,
MAVELIKARA
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/09/2023
OF THE FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKARA IN
I.A.NO.2/2023 IN O.P.(OTHERS)NO.109/2023
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.4/2023 IN O.P.
(OTHERS)NO.109/2023 OF THE FAMILY COURT,
MAVELIKARA
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT TO EXHIBIT P6 APPLICATION
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/03/2024
OF THE FAMILY COURT, MAVELIKARA IN
I.A.NO.4/2023 IN O.P.(OTHERS)NO.109/2023
