[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Jayarajan vs Devika Jayarajan on 15 January, 2026
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
2026:KER:3050
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 25TH POUSHA,
1947
OP (FC) NO. 29 OF 2026
ORDER DATED 04.12.2025 IN EA 330/2025 IN EA
125/2025 IN EP NO.61 OF 2022, FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR
PETITIONER/JUDGMENT DEBTOR:
JAYARAJAN, AGED 56 YEARS,
SON OF KAKOLIL PADMANABHAN,
PEEDIKA ROAD, CHAMAVATTOM,
MUKKU DESOM, MUKKU VILLAGE,
PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 679577.
BY ADVS.
SMT.M.A.SULFIA
SRI.ABDUL JALEEL.A
RESPONDENTS/DECREE HOLDER:
1 DEVIKA JAYARAJAN, AGED 25 YEARS,
DAUGHTER OF JAYARAJAN, OMEGA PARADISE,
THEKKEMADOM, THRISSUR DESOM,
THRISSUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK,
THRISSUR, PIN - 680001.
2026:KER:3050
OP (FC) NO. 29 OF 2026
-2-
2 DHEERAJ JAYARAJAN
SON OF JAYARAJAN, OMEGA PARADISE,
THEKKEMADOM, THRISSUR DESOM,
THRISSUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK,
THRISSUR- THRISSUR, PIN - 680001.
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:3050
OP (FC) NO. 29 OF 2026
-3-
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The petitioner challenges Ext.P10 order of
the learned Family Court, Thrissur, which
dismissed EA No.330/2025 filed by him, wherein,
he asserted that he has paid off the decree debt
by directly paying to the 1st respondent. He
assails Ext.P11 because, it is a consequential
order; whereby, his property has now been
brought to sale in execution of the decree.
2. Sri.Abdul Jaleel A. - learned counsel
for the petitioner, argued that EA No.330/2025
is supported by e-mail communications from the
1st respondent - his daughter, wherein, it has
been clearly agreed that certain sums have been
received by her through bank transfers. He
submitted that, therefore, if the respondents
had been issued notice from the learned Family
2026:KER:3050
OP (FC) NO. 29 OF 2026
Court, they would have possibly agreed to such
payment; and the sale of his property would have
been unnecessary. He alleged that, in spite of
doing so, the learned Family Court had dismissed
his application on the ground of limitation, as
evident from Ext.P10.
3. We are fully aware that we are
considering this matter at the admission stage
and have not issued notice to the respondents.
We, however, choose to dispose of this matter,
as we are of the view that it will not prejudice
them.
4. As indicated above, the only case of
the petitioner is that he has discharged the
debt as ordered against him. This is a question
of fact, which certainly could have been decided
by the learned Family Court only after the
respondents had been issued notice.
2026:KER:3050
OP (FC) NO. 29 OF 2026
5. Prima facie, from Ext.P10, we cannot
find that the learned Family Court had issued
notice to the respondents; at least, there is no
mention therein to such effect. Pertinently,
even their lawyer does not seem to be appearing.
6. In the afore circumstances, we are of
the firm view that the learned Family Court
ought to have considered the execution
application filed by the petitioner, namely EA
No.330/2025, only after having issued notice to
the respondents, or after hearing their counsel
- as the case may be.
Resultantly, we allow this Original
Petition and set aside Ext.P10; directing the
learned Family Court to reconsider EA
No.330/2025 in EA No.125/2025 in EP No.61/2022
in OP No. 2030/2016, after hearing both sides;
thus culminating in an appropriate order at the
2026:KER:3050
OP (FC) NO. 29 OF 2026
earliest.
Until such time as the afore is done and
the orders are issued, further proceedings
pursuant to Ext.P11 shall stand deferred.
We, however, clarify that if, after the
afore exercise, the learned Court is convinced
that further proceedings in the execution
petition are required to be continued, then
consequent action based on Ext.P11, from the
stage at which it is available today
(15.01.2026), can be continued.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B.SNEHALATHA
akv JUDGE
2026:KER:3050
OP (FC) NO. 29 OF 2026
APPENDIX OF OP (FC) NO. 29 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF FAMILY
COURT, THRISSUR IN OP 2030/2016 DATED
30.03.2022
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF EXECUTION PETITION EP
61/2022 IN OP 2030/2016 OF FAMILY
COURT, THRISSUR DATED 21.07.2022
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE B-DIARY OF EP 61/2022
IN OP 2030/2016 OF FAMILY COURT,
THRISSUR SHOWING THE PAYMENTS
EXHIBIT P3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE B-DIARY OF EP 61/2022
IN OP 2030/2016 OF FAMILY COURT,
THRISSUR SHOWING THE PAYMENTS
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF CALCULATION STATEMENT
DATED 21.02.2024 OF EP 61/2022 IN OP
2030/2016 OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF EMAIL DATED 11.08.2025
FROM 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
ACKNOWLEDGING THESE TRANSFERS
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF E.A. 125/2025 DATED
12.08.2025 OF EP 61/2022 IN OP
2030/2016 OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
20/11/2025 IN ORIGINAL PETITION (FC)
NO 689/2025 OF HONORABLE HIGH COURT
EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED
4/12/2025 IN E.A 125/2025 IN EP
2026:KER:3050
OP (FC) NO. 29 OF 2026
EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF EA 330/2025 IN EP
61/2022 DATED 3/12/2025 FILED BY
PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P10 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
4/12/2025 IN EA 330/2025 IN EA
EXHIBIT P11 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
IN EP 61/2022 IN OP 2030/2016 DATED
NIL
EXHIBIT P12 THE TRUE COPY OF E-MAIL COMMUNICATION
DATED 25/12/2025 WITH HIS DAUGHTER
DEVIKA JAYARAJ
