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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 12950

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ
JYOTHISH NAIR – Appellant
Versus
SAMASYA – Respondent
OP (FC) NO. 125 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.BIJU ABRAHAM

The Court declined to rule on the merits of the case, leaving future proceedings open based on the Family Court's decisions.

Headnote:In this case, the petitioner contended that no order had been issued by the Family Court in accordance with Ext.P7, allowing him time to clear maintenance arrears. The Court's findings confirmed the petitioner's claims regarding the non-issue of the order, leading the Court to close the original petition and affirm that the Family Court's directions remain open. Key issues discussed included the necessity of further action contingent on the Family Court's decisions. The Court clarified no merits of the case were addressed. The Original Petition is therefore closed, granting the petitioner the liberty to approach the Family Court as needed.

Table of Content
1. court reviews petitioner claims about lack of orders (Para 1 , 2)
2. court acknowledges petitioner's accurate assertions on due process (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. court grants petitioner liberty for further action in family court (Para 7)

Devan Ramachandran , J.

Hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner – Sri.Biju Abraham, we called for a report from the learned Family Court; which says that no order pursuant to Ext.P7 has been issued, either on 06.12.2025 or thereafter. We must record that this was the specific submission of Sri.Biju Abraham at the Bar; but we, on account of the factum of such not being normally possible, refused to believe him; but it now has come out that he was right.

2. The order impugned before this Court is Ext.P7.

3. As per Ext.P7, the learned Family Court had offered the petitioner time till 06.12.2025 to clear the arrears of maintenance; and in the event of failure, notified him that his defence will be struck off.

4. This is why we were under the impression that there would have been an order on 06.12.2025 or even thereafter; but since the learned Family Court says otherwise, the stand taken by the petitioner is accurate.

5. It is ineluctable in such circumstances that, any action before this Court would be necessary only if the learned Family Court decides the matter pursuant to Ext.P7, leading to a final order.

6. Going by the report of the learned Family Court, the defence of the petitioner has not been struck off and even the directions in Ext.P7 are still open.

7. In the afore circumstances, we close this Original Petition, leaving full liberty to the petitioner to move the learned Family Court appropriately.

We clarify that we have not entered into the merits of any of the contention and all of them are left open.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- M.B. SNEHALATHA JUDGE stu APPENDIX OF OP (FC) NO. 125 OF 2026 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.444/2012 DATED 21-05-2015 OF THE FAMILY COURT IRINJALAKKUDA Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION FILED AS O.P. NO.813/2020 DATED 03-11-2020 FOR DIVORCE ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN AS RESPONDENT IN O.P. NO. 813/2020 DATED 31-10-2023, ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKKUDA Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN RP(FC)

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