IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
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)
AGED 42 YEARS, D/O.VARGHESE, “SREE”, RG 163,
KOCHULLOOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SMT.P.P.BLESSY MOL
1 RAJKUMAR NAIR
S/O.RAJESHWARAN NAIR, ANANDA VILASOM,
2 M.P.RAJESHWARAN NAIR
AGED 80 YEARS, C/O.SANTHA MADHAVAN, S/O.PADMANABHA
PILLAI, NANDINI GARDENS, NEAR WEST FORT, FORT
3 RAJASHREE CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED 50 YEARS, D/O.RAJESHWARAN NAIR,
NANDINI GARDENS, NEAR WEST FORT,
4 GOPI PILLAI @ RAJENDRA KUMAR
AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI,
KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE, KOLLAM-691001.
5 SHEELA GOPI
AGED 49 YEARS, W/O.GOPI PILLAI,
KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE,KOLLAM-691001.
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.
SRI.M.RAJENDRAN NAIR (THONNALLOOR)
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
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
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
MARY JOSEPH, JUDGE.
OP (FC) No.623/2017 -6-
APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 623/2017
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ORIGINAL PETITION IN
O.P.NO.258/2012 OF THE FAMILY COURT,
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.