Lakshmi Vs. Sajjay

Lakshmi vs Sajjay

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 08, 2013

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1095454

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1095454
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice Antony Dominic
Decided On: Oct 08, 2013
Subject: Family

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Family

Key legal issue: Family

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Lakshmi

Respondent

Sajjay

Excerpt

.....ext.p7 order, this op is filed. op(fc) no.3260/13 :2. :3. going by the contents of ext.p7 order, the family court appears to have taken the view that if joint trial is ordered, that will delay the disposal of op (hma) no.758/12. although it is true that the disposal of op (hma) no.758/12 which is ripe for trial will be delayed if joint trial is allowed, fact remains that, all the three cases are between the same parties and witnesses to be examined could also be the same. it cannot also be forgotten that substantial portion of the evidence will also be similar. in such circumstances, since by a joint trial what could be achieved is a finality to the entire dispute between the parties, if a short delay is caused in the disposal of op (hma) no.758/12, it is still worth.4. in such circumstances, we are inclined to interfere with ext.p7 order and accordingly, we set aside ext.p7 and dispose of this op directing that the respondent will endeavour his best to file his objections to op no.774/13 and mc no.144/13 on 29/10/13 itself, to which date, the cases according to the counsel are now posted. if for any reason, he is unable to file it on that day, he shall file it atleast on the next posting date. the family court will thereafter give an opportunity to enable the parties to complete op(fc) no.3260/13 :3. : the steps and should jointly try the cases and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible.5. having regard to the fact that the respondent is stated to be a kidney patient requiring expert treatment, it is necessary that the cases should be given an early disposal. therefore, we direct the family court to dispose of all the three cases together, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. op is disposed of as above. sd/- antony dominic, judge sd/- p.d.rajan, judge rp //true copy// pa to judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN TUESDAY,THE8H DAY OF OCTOBER201316TH ASWINA, 1935 OP (FC).No. 3260 of 2013 (R) ----------------------------- AGAINST THE

ORDER

IN IA NO.1967/2013 IN OPHMA7582012 of FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- LAKSHMI, D/O KOMALAM, KOCHUKARANAYIL HOUSE NEAR MALLEZHATHUKAVU, SAKTHIKULANGAR P.O KOLLAM69158 BY ADVS.SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.

SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM) SRI.K.R.GANESH RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- SAJJAY, S/O SIVADASAN, SAJJAY NIVAS, MEENATHUCHERIYIL KAVANAD P.O, SAKTHIKULANGAR VILLAGE, KOLLAM69100 BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON0810-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP (FC).No. 3260 of 2013 (R) ----------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OP (HMA) NO7582012 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILYCOURT, KOLLAM EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN OP (HMA) NO7582012 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OP NO7742013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OP NO1442013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A NO19672013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM FOR JOINT TRIAL EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF OBJECTION IN I.A NO19672013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE

ORDER

DATED0309-2013 IN I.A NO19672013 OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL --------------------------------------- //True Copy// PA TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC & P.D.RAJAN, JJ.

======================== O.P(FC) No. 3260 OF2013=================== Dated this the 8th day of October, 2013

JUDGMENT

Antony Dominic, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Petitioner and the respondent are wife and husband and their marriage was solemnized on 23/8/2000. In the wedlock, two children were also born, who are now aged 11 and 5 respectively. Parties are at loggerheads and OP(HMA) No.758/12 has been filed by the respondent before the Family Court, Kollam seeking divorce invoking grounds under Section 13(i) (i-a) and (i- b) of the Hindu Marriage Act. That case is ripe for trial. It appears that after the aforesaid OP was filed, petitioner filed OP No.774/13 and MC No.144/13 against the respondent seeking recovery of gold ornaments and money and also maintenance. Thereafter, she filed IA No.1967/13 in OP(HMA) No.758/12 seeking joint trial of the three cases together. That was opposed by the respondent and the Family Court by Ext.P7 order rendered on 3/9/13 dismissed the IA. It is challenging Ext.P7 order, this OP is filed. OP(FC) No.3260/13 :

2. :

3. Going by the contents of Ext.P7 order, the Family Court appears to have taken the view that if joint trial is ordered, that will delay the disposal of OP (HMA) No.758/12. Although it is true that the disposal of OP (HMA) No.758/12 which is ripe for trial will be delayed if joint trial is allowed, fact remains that, all the three cases are between the same parties and witnesses to be examined could also be the same. It cannot also be forgotten that substantial portion of the evidence will also be similar. In such circumstances, since by a joint trial what could be achieved is a finality to the entire dispute between the parties, if a short delay is caused in the disposal of OP (HMA) No.758/12, it is still worth.

4. In such circumstances, we are inclined to interfere with Ext.P7 order and accordingly, we set aside Ext.P7 and dispose of this OP directing that the respondent will endeavour his best to file his objections to OP No.774/13 and MC No.144/13 on 29/10/13 itself, to which date, the cases according to the counsel are now posted. If for any reason, he is unable to file it on that day, he shall file it atleast on the next posting date. The Family Court will thereafter give an opportunity to enable the parties to complete OP(FC) No.3260/13 :

3. : the steps and should jointly try the cases and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible.

5. Having regard to the fact that the respondent is stated to be a kidney patient requiring expert treatment, it is necessary that the cases should be given an early disposal. Therefore, we direct the Family Court to dispose of all the three cases together, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. OP is disposed of as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge Sd/- P.D.RAJAN, Judge Rp //True Copy// PA TO JUDGE

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2013 Same Parties Lakshmi vs Sajjay Same Subject Family Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice Antony Dominic