Deepthi, vs Bijoy,

Deepthi, vs BIJOY,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 31, 2021

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1619402

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/1619402
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice a.Muhamed Mustaque,Honourable Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
Decided On: Mar 31, 2021
Case Number: OP (FC)/203/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Deepthi,

Respondent

BIJOY,

Excerpt

.....this the 31st day of march 2021 a.muhamed mustaque, j this original petition was filed challenging the dismissal of the application filed in o.p.no.880/2015 for amendment. the above original petition was filed for recovery of gold ornaments by the wife against the husbandand relatives. the proposed amendment is to incorporate the present market value of the gold ornaments. the said application was dismissed stating that it was filedbelatedly.2. the learned counsel for the respondents submits that in order to lift the attachment before judgment, they furnished security for the claim amount and the present attempt is only to force the respondents to furnish additional security.3. we find no reason to decline the prayer for amendment as no prejudice will be caused to the respondents. however, on account of the said amendment, the respondents shall not be forced to furnish additional security.accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. the application for amendment in o.p.no.880/2015 is allowed. the amendment shall be carried out within a week. the o.p.(fc) is disposed ofa.muhamed mustaque judge dr. kauser edappagath kp true copy judge p.a. to judge appendix petitioner's exhibits: exhibit p1 true copy of petition in o.p 880/15 before the family court, irinjalakuda exhibit p2 true copy of counter in o.p 880/15 before the family court, irinjalakkuda exhibit p3 true copy of i.a 1/2020 in o.p 880/15 before the family court, irinjalakkuda exhibit p4 true copy of counter in ia 1/2020 in o.p exhibit p5 true copy of order dated 19-2-2021 in ia

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH CHAITHRA, 1943 OP (FC).No.203 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19.2.2021 IN 1/2020 IN OP 880/2015 OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA PETITIONER/PETITIONER/PETITIONER: DEEPTHI, AGED 38 YEARS W/O. THAYAVALLIYIL BIJOY, D/O. THATTUPARAMBIL VASU, PAZHAYANNUR DESOM AND P.O, VADAKKETHARA VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SHRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL SMT.R.RAJITHA SMT.CHITHRA.S.BABU SRI.R.N.SANDEEP RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 BIJOY,AGED 42 YEARS S/O. THAYAVALLIYIL SUKUMARAN, KOOLIMUTTOM P.O AND 2 SUKUMARAN, AGED 76 YEARS S/O. THAYAVALLIYIL ANDI, KOOLIMUTTOM P.O AND DESOM, VILLAGE AND DESOM, KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR 3 SUJATHA, AGED 71 YEARS W/O. THAYYAVALLIYIL SUKUMARAN, KOOLIMUTTOM P.O AND THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 31st day of March 2021 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J This original petition was filed challenging the dismissal of the application filed in O.P.No.880/2015 for amendment. The above original petition was filed for recovery of gold ornaments by the wife against the husband

and relatives.              The proposed amendment is to incorporate
the present market value of the gold ornaments.                             The said
application       was        dismissed     stating       that    it    was       filed

belatedly.

2. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that in order to lift the attachment before judgment, they furnished security for the claim amount and the present attempt is only to force the respondents to furnish additional security.

3. We find no reason to decline the prayer for amendment as no prejudice will be caused to the respondents. However, on account of the said amendment, the respondents shall not be forced to furnish additional security.

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The application for amendment in O.P.No.880/2015 is allowed. The amendment shall be carried out within a week. The O.P.

(FC) is disposed of

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH kp True copy JUDGE P.A. To Judge APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF PETITION IN O.P 880/15 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER IN O.P 880/15 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF I.A 1/2020 IN O.P 880/15 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER IN IA 1/2020 IN O.P EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 19-2-2021 IN IA

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2021 Same Parties Deepthi, vs BIJOY, Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice a.Muhamed Mustaque,Honourable Dr. Just...