Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Jalaja vs Sudarsanan

Jalaja vs Sudarsanan

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Feb 22, 2023
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1353071

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala Orders High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Mat.Appeal/963/2015

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jalaja

Respondent

Sudarsanan

Excerpt

.....2nd minor petitioner.5) the interests accrued on the amount of rs.90,000/- deposited by the respondent is allowed to be withdrawn by the 1st petitioner from time to time towards the educational expenses of the 2nd minor petitioner until she attain majority and thereafter the amount will go to the marriage expenses of the 2nd petitioner. 6) considering the relationship between the parties, they are liable for their respective costs.”2. feeling aggrieved, the appellants are before this court in this appeal, invoking the provisions under section 19(1) of the family court act.3. on 06.10.2015, when this appeal came up for admission, this court admitted the matter on file and issued notice to the respondent by speed post.4. on 01.02.2019, when this appeal came up forconsideration, the learned counsel for the respondent sought time to file counter affidavit in i.a.no.1 of 2018. accordingly, the matter was directed to be posted after ten days and an interimorder restraining the respondent from alienating or encumberingthe scheduled property, in any manner, was granted.5. today, when the matter is taken up for consideration,the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that a memo dated 14.02.2023 has been filed to dismiss this appeal as not pressed. the said memo reads thus; “the respondent is no more. therefore, the appellants do not want to proceed with the above matrimonial appeal. in the light of the above, it is most humbly prayed that the above appeal may be closed as not pressed in the interest of justice.” recording the aforesaid memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellants, this appeal is dismissed as not pressed. anil k.narendran p.g.ajithkumar jg

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 3RD PHALGUNA, MAT.APPEAL NO. 963 OF 2015 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 30.12.2014 IN OP 6/2014 OF FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: 1 JALAJA, AGED 46 YEARS D/O.RADHA, PLAVILA VEEDU, PAPPALA, PAZHAYAKUNNUMMEL VILLAGE, KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM. 2 DRISIA, AGED 14 YEARS, (MINOR) S/O.SUDARSANAN, RESIDING AT -DO- STATED IN THE OP AS FEMALE CHILD OF THE 1ST PETITIOENR, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND GUARDIAN 1ST RESPONDENT. BY ADVS. SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. SHRI.AJIT G ANJARLEKAR SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN SRI.MANU V. SRI.G.P.SHINOD RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: SUDARSANAN, S/O.GOVINDAN, SAVITHIR BHAVAN, MUTTAPPALAM, AZHOOR, FROM THEKKEVILAKATHU VEEDU, MUDAPURAM P.O., KOZHIVILAM VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 314. BY ADV SRI.M.R.RAJESH THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.02.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Anil K.Narendran, J.

The appellants, who are the wife and minor child of the respondent, had filed O.P.No.6 of 2014 on the file of the Family Court, Attingal seeking maintenance, return of money and gold ornaments or its value and consequential reliefs. The Family Court by judgment dated 30.12.2014 in O.P.No.6 of 2014 refused to grant the entire reliefs sought for by the appellants. The operative portion of the said judgment reads thus;

“22. Point No.4:- In the result, O.P.No.6/2014 is partly allowed as follows:- 1) The prayer for return of 1 lakh rupees and 38 Sovereigns of gold ornaments or the value of the same to the 1st petitioner is disallowed. 2) The prayer for maintenance by the 1 st petitioner is disallowed. 3) Respondent is directed to pay monthly maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- to the 2nd minor petitioner from the date of this decree. 4) 1st petitioner is authorized to receive the amount of maintenance on behalf of the 2nd minor petitioner.

5) The interests accrued on the amount of Rs.90,000/- deposited by the respondent is allowed to be withdrawn by the 1st petitioner from time to time towards the educational expenses of the 2nd minor petitioner until she attain majority and thereafter the amount will go to the marriage expenses of the 2nd petitioner. 6) Considering the relationship between the parties, they are liable for their respective costs.”

2. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants are before this Court in this appeal, invoking the provisions under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act.

3. On 06.10.2015, when this appeal came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file and issued notice to the respondent by speed post.

4. On 01.02.2019, when this appeal came up for

consideration, the learned counsel for the respondent sought time to file counter affidavit in I.A.No.1 of 2018. Accordingly, the matter was directed to be posted after ten days and an interim

order restraining the respondent from alienating or encumbering

the scheduled property, in any manner, was granted.

5. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration,

the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that a memo dated 14.02.2023 has been filed to dismiss this appeal as not pressed. The said memo reads thus; “The respondent is no more. Therefore, the appellants do not want to proceed with the above matrimonial appeal. In the light of the above, it is most humbly prayed that the above appeal may be closed as not pressed in the interest of justice.” Recording the aforesaid memo filed by the learned counsel for the appellants, this appeal is dismissed as not pressed. ANIL K.NARENDRAN P.G.AJITHKUMAR jg

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial