Jayan vs Soumya

JAYAN vs Soumya

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 28, 2025

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1279214

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/1279214
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
Decided On: Mar 28, 2025
Case Number: OP(Crl.)/190/2025
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

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

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

JAYAN

Respondent

Soumya

Excerpt

.....date, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to file counter. hence, i have summoned the copy of theproceedings paper. it would show that right from 25.10.2023, the petitioner was given seven opportunities to file counter. still he did not file counter. it is a case where m. p. no.504/2023 was filed for interim maintenance on 25.10.2023 and more than one year time has been given to the petitioner to file counter. still he did not file any counter. hence, the interim maintenance was ordered. considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the quantum of maintenance granted to the respondent appears to bevery reasonable. i see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.5. the learned counsel for the petitioner submittedthat the petitioner is suffering from intellectual disability and he cannot engage in any gainful employment. the said issue can be considered in the m.c. proceedings.with the above observations, the original petition is dismissed. sd/- dr. kauser edappagath judge br appendix of op(crl.) 190/2025 petitioner’s exhibits exhibit p1 a true copy of the petition dated 23-11-2024 along with the medical certificate dated 08-10-2024 submitted before the family court exhibit p2 a true copy of the disability certificate dated 05-03-2025, issued by the general hospital, irinjalakudaexhibit p3 true copy of m.c. no. 171/2023 filed exhibit p4 true copy of m.p. no. 504/2023 filed exhibit p5 a true copy of the order dated23-11-2024 passed in mp no. 504/2023 in mc no. 171/2023 by the family court, irinjalakuda respondent’s exhibits: nil

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 OP(CRL.) NO. 190 OF 2025 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2024 IN MP NO.504 OF 2023 IN MC NO.171 OF 2023 OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: JAYAN AGED 42 YEARS S/O EDAPARAMBIL VEETIL CHANDRAN, NAYARANGADI DESAM, KALLOOR P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DIST, PIN - 680317 BY ADVS. REJI MATHEW.M N.SAJU THOMAS MATHEW VARGHESE MATHEWS K. NELLUVELY JOEL REJI MATHEW RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: SOUMYA AGED 35 YEARS D/O LATE SATHYAN, ARAKKAL VEETIL, KALLOOR P.O., ADHOOR DESAM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DIST, PIN - 680317 THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Ext.P5 interim order of maintenance is under challenge in this Original Petition.

2. The petitioner is the husband of the respondent. The Family Court, Irinjalakuda granted interim maintenance to the respondent at the rate of ₹5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) per month as per Ext.P5 order.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. In the impugned order, it is stated that no counter

statement has been filed. When the case came up on the last posting date, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to file counter. Hence, I have summoned the copy of the

proceedings paper. It would show that right from 25.10.2023, the petitioner was given seven opportunities to file counter. Still he did not file counter. It is a case where M. P. No.504/2023 was filed for interim maintenance on 25.10.2023 and more than one year time has been given to the petitioner to file counter. Still he did not file any counter. Hence, the interim maintenance was ordered. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the quantum of maintenance granted to the respondent appears to be

very reasonable. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the petitioner is suffering from intellectual disability and he cannot engage in any gainful employment. The said issue can be considered in the M.C. proceedings.

With the above observations, the Original Petition is dismissed. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE BR APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 190/2025 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 23-11-2024 ALONG WITH THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 08-10-2024 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DISABILITY CERTIFICATE DATED 05-03-2025, ISSUED BY THE GENERAL HOSPITAL, IRINJALAKUDA

Exhibit P3         TRUE COPY OF M.C. NO. 171/2023 FILED
Exhibit P4         TRUE COPY OF M.P. NO. 504/2023 FILED
Exhibit P5         A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED

23-11-2024 PASSED IN MP NO. 504/2023 IN MC NO. 171/2023 BY THE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS: NIL

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2025 Same Parties JAYAN vs Soumya Same Subject Right to Information Same Judge Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath