SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 53828

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, J
PRASOON T – Appellant
Versus
KEERTHANA M – Respondent
OP(CRL.) NO. 614 OF 2025 | MC NO.98 OF 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.C.K.SREEJITH, SMT.NAMITHA JYOTHISH, SHRI.MOHAMMED P., SHRI.SUJITH K. MOHANAN
For the Respondents: SRI.E.C.BINEESH-SR.PP

The court allows for the setting aside of an ex-parte order under lawful representation despite prior dismissals.

Headnote:This original petition, filed by the respondent in M.C.No. 98 of 2023 through his power of attorney holder, requests a direction to the Family Court to accept the power of attorney for representation. The Family Court had dismissed prior applications, and the petitioner was set ex-parte, leading to a maintenance order against him. The court finds the petition infructuous but allows for future applications through the attorney that must be addressed by the Family Court in accordance with law. The court concludes, 'The original petition is disposed of as above.'

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks representation through power of attorney. (Para 1 , 3)
2. court allows procedural claims despite prior dismissals. (Para 2 , 4)

J U D G M E N T

This original petition has been filed by the respondent in M.C.No. 98 of 2023 through his power of attorney holder to give a direction to the Family Court, Thalassery to accept the power of attorney and permit him to defend the case.

2. I have heard the power of attorney holder of the petitioner, who appeared in person.

3. I have called for a report from the learned Judge, Family Court, Thalassery, who reported that CMP No. 831 of 2024 filed by the petitioner to allow his power of attorney holder to represent him in the case and CMP 833 of 2024 filed by the power of attorney holder to accept the power of attorney were dismissed for default. Subsequently, the petitioner was set ex-parte and the MC itself was allowed directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondent No.1. In these circumstances, the prayer in this original petition has become infructuous. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file an application through his power of attorney holder to set aside the ex-parte order before the Family Court, Thalassery. If such an application is filed, the Familly Court is directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law.

4. The power of attorney holder of the petitioner, who appeared in person, submitted that even though he has filed a copy application to get the copy of the ex-parte order in MC, that has not been served so far. If such an application is filed, the petitioner shall be issued with the certified copy, in accordance with law.

The original petition is disposed of as above.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top