Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 58876

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
RAKESH – Appellant
Versus
RAKHI – Respondent
OP(Crl.)/496/2022

Advocates:
ANIL PRASAD, SABU P. JOSEPH, C.N. SREEKUMAR, MANJU PAUL, LIJO VARGHESE, BEYON T. VARGHESE, ARYA K.K.

The court clarified its authority to amend orders for correcting mistakes, ensuring accurate representations in legal documents.

Headnote:
Amendment - Family Law - Article 227 - This case highlights the court's authority under Article 227 to amend orders for correcting mistakes in name, emphasizing the importance of accuracy in legal proceedings.
Fact of the Case:

The petition challenged an order allowing an amendment of the respondent's name in a maintenance case, arguing it was done unsustainably after the final order was passed.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the amendment was a correction of a mistake regarding the respondent's name, thus no illegality was present in the Family Court's decision.
Issues: Whether the Family Court had the authority to amend an earlier order to correct the name of the respondent post-judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: The amendment was necessary to rectify an erroneous entry in a legal proceeding, confirming the court's power to ensure accurate representation of parties.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

J U D G M E N T

This is an original petition filed under Article

227 of the Constitution of India and the prayer in this petition are as under:

i. Set aside the Ext.P1 order dated

21.03.2022 in M.P.No.1231 of 2021 in M.C.No.623 of

2017 of the Family Court, Thrissur;

ii. to declare that the Ext.P3 order dated

11.10.2019 in M.C.No.623 of 2017 of the Family Court, Thrissur cannot be executed against the petitioner herein;

iii. this Hon'ble Court, may please to dispense with the production of English translation of the documents in vernacular language produced as exhibits along with this Original petition;

iv. Grant any other appropriate writ, order or direction as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.

2. On notice, Adv.Sri.Mahesh V. Menon appeared for the respondent.

3. Ex.P1 order is under challenge in this original petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who is the respondent in the MC, that originally M.C.No.623 of 2017 was filed before the Family Court showing the name of the respondent as 'Rajesh'. Two other cases also posted along with the MC. Thereafter, an order was passed on 11.10.2019 allowing maintenance at the rate of Rs.8,000/-, after declaring the petitioner as ex-parte.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, after passing the order, M.P.No.1231 of 2021 was filed to amend the name of the respondent and the Family Court allowed the same as per Ext.P1 order. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amendment of the name, after passing the order, is unsustainable and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

5. According to the learned counsel, the amendment ought to have been effected before passing the final order on 11.10.2019.

6. Controverting this contention, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that admittedly, M.C.No.623 of 2017 was filed naming the respondent as 'Rajesh' and name of the husband of the petitioner is 'Rakesh'. He also submitted that though notice was issued in the MC, the same was returned with endorsement 'name differs'. However, in the MC, the respondent appeared and on appearance, the original petitioner filed MP No.394 of 2019 seeking interim maintenance. In the said petition, copy was given to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and after hearing both sides, order granting interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- was passed on 10.07.2019. Thereafter, the respondent was set ex-parte, since he did not appear before the Family Court and an order was passed. When the order was put in execution, it was found that the name of the respondent is wrongly shown and thereby, an application as MP No.1231 of 2021 was filed and the learned Family Court Judge addressed the history of the case in detail and in consideration of the facts involved, amendment was allowed.

7. Having heard the learned counsel as above, I have perused the notice issued in M.C.No.623 of 2017 forwarded by the learned Family Court Judge. In the said envelop, the name of the respondent is shown as Rajesh, though all other descriptions are correct. In fact, the notice returned with endorsement 'name differs'. The learned Family Court Judge also forwarded the proceedings in M.C.No.623 of 2017 and the same are as under;

1 10-04-2018 Issue F/N in C/A 28-05-2018

2 28-05-2018 Referred for counselling 25.07.18

3 25-07-2018 Await Report 14.09.2018

4 14-09-2018 Produce both NFT 8.10.2018

5 08-10-2018 referred for counseling produce both 23.10.2018

6 23-10-2018 referred for psychological counseling 29.12.2018

7 29-12-2018 No sitting reposted to 22.1.2019

8 22-01-2019 For report 5.3.2019

9 05-03-2019 Produce both 22.3.2019

10 22-03-2019 Produce both nft 25.3.2019

11 25-03-2019 For settlement 4.4.2019

12 04-04-2019 referred for mediation 16.4 2019