Anna vs Omana

ANNA vs OMANA

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 16, 2020

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1770697

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/1770697
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice a.M.Shaffique,Honourable Mrs. Justice Mary Joseph
Decided On: Jan 16, 2020
Case Number: Mat.Appeal/221/2014

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

ANNA

Respondent

OMANA

Excerpt

.....with mat.appeal.221/2014, the court on the same day delivered the following: mat.appeal.no.221&222/14 5judgment[ mat.appeal.221/2014, mat.appeal.222/2014 ] dated this the 16th day of january 2020a.m.shaffique,j.these two appeals arises from order dated 22-1-2014 in i.a no.515/2013 and 516 of 2013 in o.s no.188/2000 of family court, chavara. the applications were filed by the appellant herein seeking to set aside an ex-parte decree and to condone the delay of 1833 days.2. the family court found that there was no sufficient causeto condone the delay and accordingly, the application to condone the delay was dismissed and consequently, the petition to set aside ex- parte decree was also dismissed.3. the counsel for the appellant would submit that thoughthe appellant had appeared in the case, since the appellant was unable to establish the marriage, it was declared that the appellant was not the legally wedded wife of late kunjukrishnan. it is submitted that the appellant has two daughters and a settlement deed was also executed mat.appeal.no.221&222/14 6in their favour by the appellant. by the exparte judgment, the settlement deed also had been set aside. but it is submitted by the learned counsel that the children have legal right to claim partition of the said property belonging to their father and the findings in the aforesaid judgment that the appellant is not the legally wedded wife cannot stand in the way of children claiming partition.5. apparently, this is a case in which the children ofappellant were not parties and if at all they have any independent right it shall be open for them to exercise the said right in accordance with law. the dismissal of the application to set aside ex-parte decree will not stand in the way of the said persons agitating their rights.6. as far as the appeal is concerned, even according to theappellant, she had received notice in the case, she had appeared and filed written statement. but thereafter, she did not.....

Full Judgment

Mat.Appeal.No.221&222/14 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 26TH POUSHA, 1941 Mat.Appeal.No.221 OF 2014 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS 188/2000 DATED 22-01-2014 OF FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ANNA D/O.ELIYA, KALLUVILAYIL VEEDU, VENGA MURI, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE. BY ADVS. SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SMT.T.A.LUXY SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (THURAVOOR) SRI.V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: 1 OMANA AKKARAVILA VEEDU, KAVITHALAYAM, VENGA, 2 ASHA JUBILY AGED 31 YEARS 3 KAVITHA JUBILY AGED 27 YEARS Mat.Appeal.No.221&222/14 2 KARUNAGAPPALLY. R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNA KUMAR MANGALAM R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNA KUMAR (MANGALAM) THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.01.2020, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.222/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mat.Appeal.No.221&222/14 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 26TH POUSHA, 1941 Mat.Appeal.No.222 OF 2014 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OS 188/2000 DATED 22-01-2014 OF FAMILY COURT, CHAVARA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ANNA D/O.ELIYA, KALLUVILAYIL VEEDU, VENGA MURI, MYNAGAPPALLY VILLAGE. BY ADVS. SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SMT.T.A.LUXY SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (THURAVOOR) SRI.V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: 1 OMANA AKKARAVILA VEEDU, KAVITHALAYAM, VENGA, KARUNAGAPPALLY. 2 ASHA JUBILY AGED 31 YEARS 3 KAVITHA JUBILY AGED 27 YEARS Mat.Appeal.No.221&222/14 4 R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNA KUMAR MANGALAM R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNA KUMAR (MANGALAM) THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.01.2020, ALONG WITH Mat.Appeal.221/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mat.Appeal.No.221&222/14 5

JUDGMENT

[ Mat.Appeal.221/2014, Mat.Appeal.222/2014 ] Dated this the 16th day of January 2020

A.M.SHAFFIQUE,J.

These two appeals arises from Order dated 22-1-2014 in I.A No.515/2013 and 516 of 2013 in O.S No.188/2000 of Family Court, Chavara. The applications were filed by the appellant herein seeking to set aside an ex-parte decree and to condone the delay of 1833 days.

2. The Family Court found that there was no sufficient cause

to condone the delay and accordingly, the application to condone the delay was dismissed and consequently, the petition to set aside ex- parte decree was also dismissed.

3. The counsel for the appellant would submit that though

the appellant had appeared in the case, since the appellant was unable to establish the marriage, it was declared that the appellant was not the legally wedded wife of late Kunjukrishnan. It is submitted that the appellant has two daughters and a settlement deed was also executed Mat.Appeal.No.221&222/14 6

in their favour by the appellant. By the exparte judgment, the Settlement Deed also had been set aside. But it is submitted by the learned counsel that the children have legal right to claim partition of the said property belonging to their father and the findings in the aforesaid judgment that the appellant is not the legally wedded wife cannot stand in the way of children claiming partition.

5. Apparently, this is a case in which the children of

appellant were not parties and if at all they have any independent right it shall be open for them to exercise the said right in accordance with law. The dismissal of the application to set aside ex-parte decree will not stand in the way of the said persons agitating their rights.

6. As far as the appeal is concerned, even according to the

appellant, she had received notice in the case, she had appeared and filed written statement. But thereafter, she did not prosecute the matter. Under such circumstances, when she had suffered a decree, she cannot after 5 years, re-agitate the issue.

7. Even going by the affidavit filed in support of the Mat.Appeal.No.221&222/14 7 application to condone delay, we don't find any sufficient reason to condone the delay.

8. In the result, the Family Court was justified in

dismissing the said applications. We do not find any ground to interfere with the same. Hence, Mat. Appeals are dismissed. Sd/- A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Sd/- MARY JOSEPH JUDGE JJ //True copy// Sd/- PA TO JUDGE

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2020 Same Parties ANNA vs OMANA Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice a.M.Shaffique,Honourable Mrs. Justice M...