Joseph Laiju v. Mary Linsa K.S
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 RPFC.No. 304 of 2013 () ------------------------ MC 113/2010 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH LAIJU, AGED 36 YEARS S/O.K.J.XAVIER, KOTTAPRAMBU HOUSE, KUMBALANGHI P.O. KOCHI - 7 BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/STATE:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. MARY LINSA K.S, AGED 29 YEARS D/O.STANELY, KANDATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUMBALANGHI P.O. KOCHI - 7.
2. RENZO STENSTAUOS, AGED 9 MONTHS, S/O.MARY LINSA, KANDTHIPRAMBIL HOUSE KUMBALANGHI P.O., KOCHI -7 REP. BY THE FIRST INFORMATION RESPONDENT MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND
3. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON ABRAHAM R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.NELSON ABRAHAM R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.GOPINATHAN R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI.R.GITHESH THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of December 2015
O R D E R
The revision petitioner is the respondent in M.C.No.113 of 2010 on the files of the Family Court, Ernakulam. The revision petitioner was directed to pay Rs.1,500/- per month to the 1st respondent and Rs.2,500/- per month to the 2nd respondent towards their maintenance. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision petition has been filed.
2. Heard both sides.
3. When this matter has been taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted
: 2 :
that eventhough the revision petitioner had filed M.P. Nos.401 of 2013 and 402 of 2013 for re-opening the evidence and to issue summons to additional two witnesses, the court below passed the order impugned without allowing the said application and thereby deprived the revision petitioner of his opportunity to adduce evidence to prove that the first respondent is employed. It appears from the order impugned that the court below dismissed the said application mainly on the reason that it was a belated application. The court below further found that the application was filed not by the party but by the counsel and hence, it was not maintainable. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it is only just and proper to grant one more opportunity to the
: 3 :
revision petitioner to adduce additional evidence. For the said reason, I am inclined to set aside the order impugned. In the result, this revision petition stands allowed, setting aside the order impugned and the matter is remitted to the court below for fresh consideration of the matter in accordance with law, affording reasonable opportunity to both sides to substantiate their contentions. Both parties shall be at liberty to file fresh application before the court below within five days from the date fixed for the appearance of the parties before the court below, for additional evidence, if any.
This being a matter of the year 2010, the court below is directed to dispose of the matter, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within two months from the date
: 4 :
fixed for the appearance of the parties before the court below.
The parties are directed to appear before the court below on 6.1.2016.
The revision petitioner shall deposit Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) before the court below within one month from today towards the arrears of interim maintenance.
If the amount is deposited, the first respondent shall be at liberty to withdraw the same from the court below. Sd/- B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE dl/17.12.2015 // True Copy // PA to Judge