Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Devan Ramachandran, M.B. Snehalatha, JJ
Binu – Appellant
Versus
Milmol – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges family court's order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the nature of the decree. (Para 3) |
| 3. court acknowledges the assumption error. (Para 4) |
| 4. non-discharge of decree doesn't justify extreme measures. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.
The petitioner challenges Ext.P6 order of the learned Family Court, Thrissur, because it has struck off his pleadings in O.P.No.312/2024, on the ground that he has not discharged the sums directed to be paid by him to the respondent as maintenance.
2. Sri.T.N.Manoj – learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that the learned Family Court seems to have committed error because, there was no order to pay maintenance against his client at any point of time; and that all which has been decreed is O.P.No.1325/2021 filed by the respondent against him, in which, he has been held liable to return certain gold ornaments and money to her. He prayed that, therefore, Ext.P6 be set aside.
3. Sri.Sabu George – learned counsel for the respondent, conceded that the decree in O.P.No.1325/2021, obtained by his client, does not relate to maintenance, but directs the petitioner to return gold and money to her. He
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
