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.

Wilson vs Jain

Wilson vs JAIN

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 24, 2020
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1768739

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 High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Mat.Appeal/650/2015

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Wilson

Respondent

JAIN

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr.justice k.harilal & the honourable mr.justice c.s.dias monday, the 24th day of february 2020 / 5th phalguna, 1941 mat.appeal.no.650 of 2015 against the order in op 83/2013 dated 07-09-2013 of family court, kalpetta appellants/respondents: 1 wilson, aged 48 years s/o.john, thekkan house, 2 mariyamma, aged 71 years, w/o.john, thekkan house, by advs. sri.rajit smt.v.vijitha respondent/petitioner : jain, aged 45 years, w/o.wilson, thekkan house, wayanad district - 673 576 r1 by adv. sri.p.k.ramkumar this matrimonial appeal having been finally heard on 24.02.2020, the court on the same day delivered the following:judgmentin view of the dismissal of the delay condonation application, this mat appeal also would stand dismissed. sd/- k.harilal, judge c.m.appln.no.2239 of 2015 inorderthis court by order dated 07.01.2020 allowed the c.m.appln.no.2239/2015 on condition that the appellant pays an amount of rs.5,000/- as cost to the respondent/counsel for the respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of the order.2. the registry has reported that the cost ordered to be paid hasnot been deposited till date. we find that, there is non- compliance of interim order. accordingly, we dismiss the delay condonation application. sd/-k.harilal, judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1941 Mat.Appeal.No.650 OF 2015 AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP 83/2013 DATED 07-09-2013 OF FAMILY COURT, KALPETTA APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 WILSON, AGED 48 YEARS S/O.JOHN, THEKKAN HOUSE, 2 MARIYAMMA, AGED 71 YEARS, W/O.JOHN, THEKKAN HOUSE, BY ADVS. SRI.RAJIT SMT.V.VIJITHA RESPONDENT/PETITIONER : JAIN, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.WILSON, THEKKAN HOUSE, WAYANAD DISTRICT - 673 576 R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

In view of the dismissal of the delay condonation application, this MAT appeal also would stand dismissed. Sd/- K.HARILAL, JUDGE C.M.Appln.No.2239 of 2015 in

ORDER

This court by order dated 07.01.2020 allowed the C.M.Appln.No.2239/2015 on condition that the appellant pays an amount of Rs.5,000/- as cost to the respondent/counsel for the respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of the order.

2. The registry has reported that the cost ordered to be paid has

not been deposited till date. We find that, there is non- compliance of interim order. Accordingly, we dismiss the delay condonation application. Sd/-K.HARILAL, JUDGE

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial