Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SUNIL THOMAS, J
NISHA ANNA SAJI – Appellant
Versus
ANIL THOMAS – Respondent
OP(Crl.)/184/2018
Maintenance - Domestic Violence - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 25(2) - The court upheld the trial court's decision to set aside an ex parte order for interim maintenance, emphasizing the importance of proper service of notice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought interim maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, but the interim order was challenged by the respondent claiming improper notice was served, leading to the set aside of the initial ex parte order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that notice via affixture at an old address was invalid since the petitioner provided a current address, and therefore the trial court's decision to set aside the interim order was justified.
Issues: Whether the notice served by affixture at an old address was valid given that the petitioner had furnished the correct current address.
Ratio Decidendi: Proper notice is crucial in legal proceedings; the service of notice via affixture cannot substitute for direct service when a current address is provided.
Final Decision: The original petition is dismissed; the trial court is directed to reconsider the application for interim maintenance.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner herein moved the court below under section
25(2) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005 seeking maintenance. She sought interim maintenance at the rate of Rs.20,000/- which was the amount sought in the main application itself. Since the respondent did not appear, interim maintenance was granted at the rate of Rs.20,000/-. At that stage, respondent appeared before the court below and filed application to set aside the ex parte order. It was allowed by order in Crl.M.P. No.
5449/2017. This is under challenge in the present proceedings.
2. It seems that, the court below has noticed that the notice on the first respondent herein was effected by way of affixture. The court also noticed that the present address of the first respondent was furnished in the application itself. However, affixture was effected in the old address. Noticing this, the court below promptly and correctly set aside the order of the court below.
3. Having considered the fact that, when the petitioner herein furnishes the present address of the first respondent herein, service could not have been effected by affixture in the old address. The O.P( Crl.) No.184/2018 2 contention of the petitioner herein that, the other respondents who are the parents of the first respondent had notice regarding the proceedings is of no concern, since notice on the parents cannot be treated as notice on the son, who are arrayed separately as respondents.
4. Having regard to the above, I feel that there is no scope for interference in the order under challenge. Hence, the original petition is liable to be dismissed. However, having regard to the fact the court below has fixed the interim maintenance I am inclined to dispose of the original petition with the following directions.
The court below shall take up the application for interim maintenance and pass appropriate orders within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment The respondent herein may file, objections, if any, in the meanwhile. If the first respondent fails to file objection forthwith, the court below will be entitled to proceed as if no objection is filed to the interlocutory application and pass appropriate orders.
SUNIL THOMAS Judge dpk O.P( Crl.) No.184/2018 3
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
