Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 26096 Ker
Judgement Date : 3 September, 2024
2024:KER:67015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 12TH BHADRA, 1946
OP (FC) NO. 473 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.06.2024 IN I.A.NO.4/2024 IN
O.P.NO.1043/2023 AND I.A.NO.5/2024 IN O.P.NO.1049/2024 OF THE
FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER:
KRISHNA KUMAR C, AGED 54 YEARS
S/O CHANDRASHEKHARAN PILLAI,
NO 57 FE LAKESHORE HOUSE, KASAVANAHALLI,
BANGLORE- 560035, PIN - 560035
BY ADVS.
K.B.PRADEEP
HARISANKAR R
RESPONDENTS:
1 ANIRUDH.K. NAIR, AGED 22 YEARS
APARTMENT NO C2, SOBHA DAHLIA,
VARTHUR HOBLY BELLANDUR,
BANGALORE SOUTH, PIN - 560103
2 BHARATH K.NAIR,(MINOR), AGED 16 YEARS
S/O KRISHNA KUMAR C APARTMENT NO C2,
SOBHA DAHLIA, VARTHUR HOBLY BELLANDUR,
BANGALORE SOUTH ,REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER
ASWATHY VENUGOPAL, AGED 46, D/O OF GIRIJA DEVI,
RESIDING AT, VISHAL, TC NO /826/1 , VJ LANE ,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PERMANENTLY
RESIDING AT - C2- 1042, 4 TH FLOOR, SOBHA DAHLIA,
GREEN GLEN LAYOUT, BELLANDUR, BANGALORE.,
PIN - 560103
BY ADVS.
2024:KER:67015
OP(FC) 473/24 & 474/24
2
MARTIN JOSE P
P.PRIJITH(K/233/2005)
THOMAS P.KURUVILLA(K/420-B/2005)
R.GITHESH(K/630/2002)
AJAY BEN JOSE(K/729/2012)
HARIKRISHNAN S.(K/497/2019)
MANJUNATH MENON(K/000474/2015)
SACHIN JACOB AMBAT(K/734/2016)
ANNA LINDA EDEN(K/1201/2020)
S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)(S-571)
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.09.2024, ALONG WITH OP (FC)NO.474/2024, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:67015
OP(FC) 473/24 & 474/24
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 12TH BHADRA, 1946
OP (FC) NO. 474 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.06.2024 IN I.A.NO.4/2024 IN
O.P.NO.1043/2023 AND I.A.NO.5/2024 IN O.P.NO.1049/2024 OF THE
FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONER:
KRISHNA KUMAR C, AGED 54 YEARS
S/O CHANDRASHEKHARAN PILLAI, NO. 57,
FE LAKESHORE HOUSE, KASAVANAHALLI,
BANGALORE., PIN - 560035
BY ADVS.
K.B.PRADEEP
HARISANKAR R
RESPONDENT:
ASWATHY VENUGOPAL, AGED 46 YEARS
APARTMENT NO C2, SOBHA DAHLIA, VARTHUR
HOBLY BANGALORE SOUTH NOW RESIDING AT
C2- 1042, 4 TH FLOOR, SOBHA DAHLIA,
GREEN GLEN LAYOUT, BELLANDUR, BANGALORE,
PIN - 560103
BY ADVS.
MARTIN JOSE P
P.PRIJITH(K/233/2005)
THOMAS P.KURUVILLA(K/420-B/2005)
R.GITHESH(K/630/2002)
AJAY BEN JOSE(K/729/2012)
2024:KER:67015
OP(FC) 473/24 & 474/24
4
HARIKRISHNAN S.(K/497/2019)
MANJUNATH MENON(K/000474/2015)
SACHIN JACOB AMBAT(K/734/2016)
ANNA LINDA EDEN(K/1201/2020)
S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)(S-571)
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.09.2024, ALONG WITH OP (FC)NO.473/2024, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:67015
OP(FC) 473/24 & 474/24
5
JUDGMENT
[OP (FC) Nos.473/2024 & 474/2024]
Devan Ramachandran, J.
We are disposing of these matters together because the parties are
part of the same family, though the afore Original Petitions seek
different reliefs.
2. In both the Original Petitions before the learned Family
Court, Thiruvananthapuram, the petitioner is the respondent; while, one
among them has been filed by his wife, and the other by his children.
3. We do not propose to enter into the details of the facts
because, the sole and pointed controversy between the parties at this
stage is whether the Original Petitions are maintainable before the
learned Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram.
4. The specific case of the petitioner is that his wife and
children are residing at Bangalore; while, the latter impels the
contention that the entire cause of action arose within
Thiruvananthapuram, particularly because the wife is permanently
residing there.
2024:KER:67015 OP(FC) 473/24 & 474/24
5. Sri.K.B.Pradeep - learned counsel for the petitioner in both
these matters, argued that it was unfair on the part of the learned Trial
Court to have dismissed his client's applications, without considering
whether the factual and legal matrix would justify the prayers therein.
He argued that hence, even if the learned Court was not inclined to
consider the applications at that stage, it ought to have deferred the
question of maintainability, to be decided it in the Original Petition
itself. He therefore, prayed that, in such perspective, the impugned
orders in these Original Petitions be set aside.
6. Sri.Harikrishnan S. - learned counsel for the respondents,
however, submitted that the afore arguments of the petitioner are
untenable because, he has himself invoked the jurisdiction of the
learned Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, in an Original Petition filed
under the Guardians and Wards Act. He added that, in any event, as
has also been correctly found in the impugned orders, the issue of
maintainability is one which is edificed on mixed questions of facts and
law and can only be decided, framing an issue, during the trial of the
Original Petition. He, therefore, left it to this Court to issue appropriate 2024:KER:67015 OP(FC) 473/24 & 474/24
orders in such regard.
7. As we have already said above, the limited controversy
between the parties is only as to the maintainability of the Original
Petitions. Even going by the afore narrative of the rival contentions and
facts projected, it is indubitable that no affirmative decision can be
taken on this issue, unless evidence is taken, after raising it as an issue,
during trial. Since both sides agree to this course and since we find no
reason why we should not direct the learned Family Court to do so, we
are certain that these Original Petitions ought to be allowed to such
extent.
8. That being said, we notice from the impugned orders that
the afore liberty is virtually reserved to the parties; but without saying
so in explicit terms. The intent of the learned Trial Court is clear that
the issue of maintainability will be decided, after framing it as an issue,
at the time of trial.
In the afore circumstances, we dispose of these Original Petitions,
without intervening with the impugned orders; however, clarifying that
the learned Trial Court will raise an issue relating to maintainability, 2024:KER:67015 OP(FC) 473/24 & 474/24
depending upon the manner in which it is impelled before it in the
pleadings of the parties; and then proceed to dispose of the Original
Petitions, after affording necessary opportunity to both sides.
Needless to say, the opinion of the learned Family Court in the
orders impugned herein will not fetter or influence it when the matters
are finally disposed of, but will be governed by the facts established and
evidence adduced during trial.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B. SNEHALATHA JUDGE
RR 2024:KER:67015 OP(FC) 473/24 & 474/24
APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 474/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION NO.1043/2023 DATED 13-05-2023 IN FILE OF FAMILY COURT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS DATED 16-12- 2023 IN ORIGINAL PETITION NO.1043/2023 DATED 13-05-2023 IN FILE OF FAMILY COURT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF AN APPLICATION DT 22/2/2024 FOR CONSIDERING MAINTAINABILITY AS A PRELIMINARY ISSUE, FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS I.A NO. 4/2024,
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 28-2- 2024 TO EXHIBIT P-3
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION NO.1049/2023 DATED 12-05-2023 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 4-12-2023 FILED AGAINST EXHIBIT-P5
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE AN APPLICATION AS I.A NO. 5/24 IN ORIGINAL PETITION NO.1049/2023 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 28-02- 2024.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDI.A NO. 4/2024 IN OP NO. 1043/2023 AND I.A 5/2024 IN O.P 1049/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 1-06- 2024,IN 2024:KER:67015 OP(FC) 473/24 & 474/24
APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 473/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION NO.1043/2023 DATED 12-05-2023 IN FILE OF FAMILY COURT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS DATED 18-12- 2023 IN ORIGINAL PETITION NO.1043/2023 IN FILE OF FAMILY COURT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF AN APPLICATION DT 22/2/2024 FOR CONSIDERING MAINTAINABILITY AS A PRELIMINARY ISSUE, FILED BY THE
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 28-2- 2024 TO EXHIBIT P-3
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE O.P NO. 1049\2023, DT.
12-05-2023 SEEKING MAINTENANCE, BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DT. 4-12-2023 TO EXHIBIT- P5.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION AS I.A NO.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 28/02/2024 IN O.P NO. 1049\2023
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY THE COMMON ORDER DATED 1-06- 2024,IN I.A NO. 4/2024 IN OP NO.
ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!