[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Anjana Pratap vs Achuthan Sasikumar on 1 December, 2025
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
2025:KER:92669
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
OP (FC) NO. 667 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 04.10.2025 IN OP NO.2821 OF
2021 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
ANJANA PRATAP
AGED 34 YEARS
D/O. B PRATAP CHANDAR, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.53, JM
GARDENS, VADUTHALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682023
BY ADVS.
SRI.N.M.MADHU
SMT.C.S.RAJANI
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
ACHUTHAN SASIKUMAR
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O. LATE SASIKUMAR RAMANKUTTY, KUMMANNOOR HOUSE,
KUMARANELLOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 016 THROUGH
HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND MOTHER CHANDRIKA
SASIKUMAR, AGED 63 YEARS, W/O. LATE SASIKUMAR
RAMANKUTTY, KUMMANNOOR HOUSE, KUMARANELLOOR P.O.,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
BY ADV SRI.A.KRISHNAN
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.12.2025, ALONG WITH OP(FC).NO.668 OF 2025, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(FC).Nos.667 and 668 of 2025
2
2025:KER:92669
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 10TH
AGRAHAYANA, 1947
OP (FC) NO. 668 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 04.10.2025 IN
OP NO.2820 OF 2021 OF FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
ANJANA PRATAP
AGED 34 YEARS
D/O. B PRATAP CHANDAR, RESIDING AT FLAT
NO.53, JM GARDENS, VADUTHALA, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 682023
BY ADVS.
SRI.N.M.MADHU
SMT.C.S.RAJANI
RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS :
1 ACHUTHAN SASIKUMAR
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O. LATE SASIKUMAR RAMANKUTTY, KUMMANNOOR
HOUSE, KUMARANELLOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
- 686 016 THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER AND MOTHER CHANDRIKA SASIKUMAR, AGED
63 YEARS, W/O. LATE SASIKUMAR RAMANKUTTY,
OP(FC).Nos.667 and 668 of 2025
3
2025:KER:92669
KUMMANNOOR HOUSE, KUMARANELLOOR P.O.,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686016
2 CHANDRIKA SASIKUMAR
AGED 63 YEARS
W/O. LATE SASIKUMAR RAMANKUTTY, KUMMANNOOR
HOUSE, KUMARANELLOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686016
3 AJITH SASIKUMAR
AGED 31 YEARS
S/O. LATE SASIKUMAR RAMANKUTTY, KUMMANNOOR
HOUSE, KUMARANELLOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686016
4 ARAVIND SASIKUMAR
AGED 30 YEARS
S/O. LATE SASIKUMAR RAMANKUTTY, KUMMANNOOR
HOUSE, KUMARANELLOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686016
5 SURENDRAN NAIR
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O. DAMODARAN NAIR, SIVAKRIPA, KIZHAKKENADA,
ETTUMANOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686631
BY ADV SRI.A.KRISHNAN
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.12.2025, ALONG WITH OP(FC).NO.667 OF
2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP(FC).Nos.667 and 668 of 2025
4
2025:KER:92669
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran,J.
We are considering these Original Petitions
together since the constitutive facts are analogous, while
the parties are the same.
2. The petitioner filed two Original Petitions before
the learned Family Court, Ernakulam, namely:
O.P.No.2820/2021, seeking return of her gold ornaments,
patrimony and also damages; and O.P.No.2821/2021,
seeking a declaration that her marriage with the 1 st
respondent is null and void.
3. The above said Original Petitions were allowed
by the learned Family Court, after setting aside the
respondents as ex parte, on 25.07.2024.
4. The respondents, thereupon, filed applications
to have the ex parte decree set aside - invoking the
provisions of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil
Procedure (CPC) - accompanied by an application to
condone the delay of about 53 days in filing the former;
but these applications in both cases have been allowed, on
OP(FC).Nos.667 and 668 of 2025
2025:KER:92669
condition that the respondents pay an amount of
Rs.20,000/- each as costs to the petitioner.
5. The petitioner challenges the order on the
ground that the learned Family Court ought not to have
given any opportunity to the respondents to contest the
Original Petitions, particularly when they refused to appear
before it more than eleven times, before it had been listed
for trial.
6. Sri.N.M.Madhu - learned Counsel for the
petitioner, argued that the obdurate refusal of the
respondents to participate in the trial of the cases, denies
them any right to seek such after the Original Petitions had
been decreed. He predicated that, no litigant who
manipulates the situation to their favour, could be granted
any latitude; and prayed that, therefore, these Petitions be
allowed.
7. Sri.A.Krishnan - appearing for the respondents,
on the other hand, submitted that the facts are not as
stated by Sri.N.M.Madhu because, his clients, pending the
Original Petitions before the learned Family Court, had
OP(FC).Nos.667 and 668 of 2025
2025:KER:92669
moved applications for their joint trial; but which had been
disallowed by the said Court. He pointed out that his
clients, thereafter, approached this Court; and consequent
to its dismissal, moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which
also finally dismissed it; however, only in the month of
September 2024. He explained that his client had been
advised not to participate in the trial when his Special
Leave Petition was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court because, had they done so, the matter would have
been rendered infructuous. He added that, upon the
Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissing the Special Leave
Petitions, his clients moved the learned Family Court with
the applications in question; which have, however, been
dismissed, holding incorrectly that they did not participate
in the trial even after the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court had been issued. He prayed that, therefore, these
Original Petitions be dismissed.
8. We have given the rival contentions great
amount of thought.
9. We must start by saying that, the plea of the
OP(FC).Nos.667 and 668 of 2025
2025:KER:92669
petitioner in the Original Petitions before the learned
Family Court has far-reaching consequences because, she
has sought for a declaration that the marriage between the
parties be declared null and void; and also for return of her
gold, coupled with a demand for damages. These have
been now allowed through an ex parte judgment; and
normally, it would not be necessary for us to expatiate that
such petitions ought to be decided on their merits, rather
than on technical grounds.
10. Going by the facts involved in these cases, the
finding of the learned Family Court is that, even though
the respondents may have had some cause in not
co-operating with the trial when the SLP before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court was pending; they lost all such, after the
same was dismissed. However, it appears to have omitted
to note that the impugned judgments and decrees were
issued in July 2024; while, admittedly, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court issued its judgments dismissing the Special
Leave Petitions only in September 2024.
11. Indubitably, the learned Family Court could
OP(FC).Nos.667 and 668 of 2025
2025:KER:92669
not have concluded that the respondents have refused to
participate in the trial, even after the Hon'ble Supreme
Court had dismissed the matters before it.
12. That said, it is ineluctable that the learned
Family Court had granted sufficient opportunity to the
respondents to participate in the trial; but their
explanation, in not acceding to it, is certainly credible,
though may not be fully justified in law.
In the afore perspective, we dismiss these Original
Petitions, particularly because we see that the petitioner
has been sufficiently compensated by costs.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B. SNEHALATHA,
JUDGE
Mms
OP(FC).Nos.667 and 668 of 2025
2025:KER:92669
APPENDIX OF OP (FC) NO. 667 OF 2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION
DATED 22.11.2021 IN O.P.
NO.2821/2021 ON THE FILES OF THE
FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE B DIARY OF THE
PROCEEDINGS IN O.P. NO.2821/2021
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
16.09.2024 IN NO.12/2024 IN O.P.
NO.2821/2021ON THE FILE OF THE
FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED
13.01.2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
TO EXHIBIT P3
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
04.10.2025 IN I.A. NOS. 11OF 2024
AND 12 OF 2024 PASSED BY THE FAMILY
COURT, ERNAKULAM
OP(FC).Nos.667 and 668 of 2025
2025:KER:92669
APPENDIX OF OP (FC) NO. 668 OF 2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION
IN O.P. NO.2820/2021 ON THE FILES OF
THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE B DIARY PROCEEDINGS
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN I.A.
NO 6/2024 DATED 16.09.2024 ON THE
FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED
13.01.2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
TO EXHIBIT P3
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED
04.10.2025 IN I.A. NOS. 5 OF 2024
AND 6 OF 2024 PASSED BY THE FAMILY
COURT, ERNAKULAM
