SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

V.V.Jaya vs Rajkumar Nair on 13 March, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH

WEDNESDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1940

OP (FC).No. 623 of 2017

(ARISING FROM IN OP 258/2012 of FAMILY COURT, TRIVANDRUM)

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

V.V.JAYA
AGED 42 YEARS, D/O.VARGHESE, “SREE”, RG 163,
KOCHULLOOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

BY ADV. SMT.P.P.BLESSY MOL

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

1 RAJKUMAR NAIR
S/O.RAJESHWARAN NAIR, ANANDA VILASOM,
KUNNUKUZHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

2 M.P.RAJESHWARAN NAIR
AGED 80 YEARS, C/O.SANTHA MADHAVAN, S/O.PADMANABHA
PILLAI, NANDINI GARDENS, NEAR WEST FORT, FORT
P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.

3 RAJASHREE CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED 50 YEARS, D/O.RAJESHWARAN NAIR,
NANDINI GARDENS, NEAR WEST FORT,
FORT P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.

4 GOPI PILLAI @ RAJENDRA KUMAR
AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI,
“DARSANA”, THIRUMULLAVARAM,
KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM-691001.

5 SHEELA GOPI
AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.GOPI PILLAI,
“DARSANA”, THIRUMULLAVARAM,
KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE,KOLLAM-691001.

6 K.C.MOHANKUMAR
AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, “KAVYAM”,
7/1427, KOCHULLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695008.
OP (FC) No.623/2017 -2-

7 SUDHA PRASANNAN
AGED 54 YEARS, W/O.SREELAKATHIL PRASANNAN,
7/1427, KOCHULLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695008.

BY ADVS.
SRI.M.RAJENDRAN NAIR (THONNALLOOR)
SRI.A.D.SHAJAN

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (FC) No.623/2017 -3-

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

MARY JOSEPH, J.
————————————————-
O.P (FC) No. 623 OF 2017
————————————————-
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF MARCH, 2019

JUDGMENT

Abdul Rehim, J:

The above original petition is instituted by invoking the

supervisory jurisdiction vested on this court under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India, seeking direction to the Family Court,

Thiruvananthapuram to keep in abeyance the final hearing of

O.P. Nos.258/2012 274/2012, pending final disposal of R.P.

No.1017/2017 filed before this court seeking review of the

judgment in Mat. Appeal No.312/2007.

2. Heard; counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as

counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.

3. The above original petition was tagged on to R.P.

No.1017/2017, through an order passed by this court on 07-11-

2017. It is also evident that, an interim order staying further

proceedings before the Family Court in O.P. Nos.258/2012

274/2012 was granted by this court.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent

contended that, the ultimate result in the review petition (RP

No.1017/2017) will not in any manner going to affect the merits
OP (FC) No.623/2017 -4-

of O.P. Nos.258/2012 274/2012, which are pending before the

Family Court. It is pointed out that, evidence in both the cases

stand completed and the cases now stand posted for final

hearing of the arguments. Therefore the stay granted by this

court is causing prejudice, is the contention.

5. We take note of the fact that O.P. 258/2012 is an

original petition filed by the petitioner herein seeking recovery

of gold ornaments and declaration that the alienation effected by

the respondent with respect to an immovable property will not

bind the petitioner in view of Section 39 of the Transfer of

Property Act, 1882. So also O.P. 274/2012 is a case filed seeking

maintenance for the petitioner and her minor daughter, under

the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. It is true

that, by virtue of the judgment passed by this court in Mat.

Appeal No.312/2007, the marriage existed between the

petitioner and the 1st respondent was dissolved on the ground of

cruelty and desertion, with effect from the date of the said

judgment (w.e.f. 02-12-2015). The said judgment, even if

reviewed, will not in any manner affect the merit of O.P.

No.258/2012, because it is filed for realization of gold ornaments

and seeking declaration with respect to transfer of the

immovable property. Likewise, the merit of O.P. 274/2012, which
OP (FC) No.623/2017 -5-

is filed seeking maintenance for the petitioner and the minor

child, will also may not be affected by the result of the review

petition. At the most, the claim for maintenance of the petitioner

herein for the period after the date of dissolution of the marriage

alone will be affected. Such an apprehension can be remedied by

making it clear that the decree if any passed by the Family Court

refusing maintenance from the date of dissolution of the

marriage, will depend upon the ultimate outcome of the review

petition. Hence we are of the opinion that the pendency of the

review petition need not stand in the way of the Family Court

disposing of O.P. Nos.258/2012 274/2012.

6. Therefore, the above original petition is hereby

disposed of by vacating the interim stay granted against disposal

of O.P. Nos.258/2012 274/2012 by the Family Court,

Thiruvananthapuram, by making it clear that, denial of

maintenance to the petitioner if any from the date of dissolution

of the marriage, if decreed in O.P. No. 274/2012, will be subject

to the outcome of R.P. No.1017/2017 in Mat. Appeal

No.312/2007.

Sd/-

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.

Sd/-

MARY JOSEPH, JUDGE.

AMG
OP (FC) No.623/2017 -6-

APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 623/2017
PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ORIGINAL PETITION IN
O.P.NO.258/2012 OF THE FAMILY COURT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.NO.274/2012 OF THE FAMILY
COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 13.2.2012.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN O.P.(F.C) NO.520/2014
DATED 8.6.2016 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MAT. APPEAL NO.312/2007
OF THIS HON’BLE COURT DATED 2.12.2015.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN MAT. APPEAL
NO.312/2007 DATED 24.8.2017.

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS

NIL

AMG

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation