High Court of KeralaOP (FC)/558/2015disposed of

Sajil v. Honey Sabu

2015-12-18Honourable Mr.Justice C.K.Abdul Rehim,Honourable Mrs. Justice Mary Joseph6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 OP (FC).No. 558 of 2015 (R) ---------------------------- I.A.NO.2155/2015 IN OP 411/2014 of FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 9.11.2015 ------------------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

------------------------------------------------ SAJIL T DEVADAS, AGED 41 YEARS S/O.THACHAPPILLY DEVADAS, ENGANDIYOOR VILLAGE CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR REP BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHEILA, AGED 67 YEARS, W/O.THACHAPPILLY DEVADAS, ENGANDIYOOR VILLAGE CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS/1ST RESPONDENT :

------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HONEY SABU, AGED 38 YEARS D/O.M.N.SABU, 'AGADA', MANGATTU VEEDU, NADAVARAMBU VELOOKKARA, MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR 680 504 THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-12-2015, ALONG WITH OPFC. 559/2015 AND OPFC.560/15, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

OP (FC).No. 558 of 2015 (R) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXT.P1:- A TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.NO.411/2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, IRIJNALAKKUDA EXT.P2:- A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IA 2155/2015 IN OP NO 411/2014 OF THE FAMILIY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA EXT.P3:- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 9/11/2015 IN IA NO 2155/2015 IN OP NO 411/2014 OF THE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL ---------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE VS

C.K.ABDUL REHIM & MARY JOSEPH, JJ.

------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of December, 2015

JUDGMENT

C.K.Abdul Rehim, J.

Since the order impugned in all the above three original petitions are identical and arose out of three cases which are jointly tried by the Family court and since the parties are common, all the three cases were considered together and disposed of through this common judgment.

2. The petitioner in these cases (first petitioner in O.P.(FC).No.559/15) is the husband of the respondent. Three cases touching the matrimonial disputes between them are pending disposal before the Family court, Irinjalakuda as O.P.No.411/2014, G.O.P.Nos.390/2014 and 425/2014. Challenge in all the above three cases are against disallowance of interim applications filed by the petitioner

-2seeking for removal of the cases from the trial list. I.A.No.2155/2015 filed in O.P.No.411/2014 and I.A.No.2158/2015 filed in G.O.P.No.390/2014 are disallowed through the impugned orders. Whereas, I.A.No.2138/2015 filed in G.O.P.No.425/2014 is allowed in part observing that there is no reason to remove the case from the list, but by granting an adjournment. It is contended that the removal of the case from the trial list is sought for on the basis that the petitioner is abroad and he will get leave only during March 2016. According to the petitioner, he can appear before the court and adduce evidence only when he is coming back on leave. Therefore removal of cases from the trial list and adjournment of the cases to March 2016, is sought for. The court below while declining the relief has not mentioned any reasons. Rather, it is a highly cryptic order through which the applications were disallowed. The impugned orders does not reflect any advertance to the reasons mentioned for seeking the adjournment. No proper

-3application of mind by the court below is reflected in the orders impugned. However, it is evident from the order passed in I.A.No.2138/2015 in G.O.P.No.425/2014 that the case is adjourned, even though removal from the trial list is not allowed.

3. Despite service of notice from this Court, the respondent has not entered appearance and contested the case. This Court is of the considered opinion that, interest of justice can be achieved by directing the Family court to consider the interim applications afresh and to take an appropriate decision, with due advertance to the reasons mentioned in those applications seeking adjournment. Hence the impugned orders in all these three original petitions are hereby set aside. The Family court is directed to consider and pass fresh orders in I.A.No.2155/2015 in O.P.No.411/2014, I.A.No.2158/2015 in G.O.P.No.390/2014 and I.A.No.2138/2015 in G.O.P.No.425/2015, taking note of the reasons upon which

-4removal of the cases from the trial list and the adjournment is sought for.

Sd/- C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE Sd/- MARY JOSEPH, JUDGE vs