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.

Radhakrishnan vs Sumangala

Radhakrishnan vs Sumangala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Jul 26, 2019
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1894224

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/783/2012

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Radhakrishnan

Respondent

Sumangala

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr.justice a.m.shaffique & the honourable mr.justice n.anil kumar friday, the 26th day of july 2019 / 4th sravana, 1941 mat.appeal.no.783 of 2012 against the order in oa 959/2011 of family court,kozhikode dated 16-06-2012 appellant/respondent: radhakrishnan, aged 46 years, s/o.kelappan, keyath house, kizhakkummuri amsom, kakkodi desom, kozhikode-678 508. by advs. sri.k.s.hariharaputhran sri.dipu james sri.george mathew sri.k.p.unnikrishnan (eloor) sri.m.d.sasikumaran respondent/petitioner: sumangala, aged 40 years, d/o.appukutty, kanath house, kanotte p.o., kunnamangalam amsom, desom, kozhikode-673 571. this matrimonial appeal having been finally heard on 26.07.2019, the court on the same day delivered the following: c.m.appln.no.3268/12 in mat.appeal no.783/12 & mat.appeal no.783/12 -:2:-judgmentshaffique, j.this appeal was filed as early as on 17/10/2012 with apetition to condone delay of 38 days in filing the appeal. notice was ordered in the delay petition as well as notice on admission was ordered in the appeal on 3/1/2013. so far, no steps had been taken by the counsel appearing for the appellant. today, when the case is taken up, learned counsel for the appellant seeks time. we do not think that any indulgence need be shown. this matter had been pending since last more than 6 years and when no attempt is made to prosecute the matter, there is no reason to show any further indulgence.the application to condone delay and the mat.appeal are therefore dismissed for non prosecution. a.m.shaffique judge n.anil kumar rp //true copy// judge ps to judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1941 Mat.Appeal.No.783 of 2012 AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 959/2011 of FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE DATED 16-06-2012 APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.KELAPPAN, KEYATH HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMMURI AMSOM, KAKKODI DESOM, KOZHIKODE-678 508. BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.DIPU JAMES SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.K.P.UNNIKRISHNAN (ELOOR) SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: SUMANGALA, AGED 40 YEARS, D/O.APPUKUTTY, KANATH HOUSE, KANOTTE P.O., KUNNAMANGALAM AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE-673 571. THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.M.Appln.No.3268/12 in Mat.Appeal No.783/12 & Mat.Appeal No.783/12 -:2:-

JUDGMENT

Shaffique, J.

This appeal was filed as early as on 17/10/2012 with a

petition to condone delay of 38 days in filing the appeal. Notice was ordered in the delay petition as well as notice on admission was ordered in the appeal on 3/1/2013. So far, no steps had been taken by the counsel appearing for the appellant. Today, when the case is taken up, learned counsel for the appellant seeks time. We do not think that any indulgence need be shown. This matter had been pending since last more than 6 years and when no attempt is made to prosecute the matter, there is no reason to show any further indulgence.

The application to condone delay and the Mat.appeal are therefore dismissed for non prosecution. A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE N.ANIL KUMAR Rp //True Copy// JUDGE PS to Judge

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial