"Will Save Judicial Time & Energy": Kerala HC Directs Joint Trial Of OP To Recover Past Maintenance & MC Claiming Future Maintenance By Family Court
The Kerala High Court directed the Family Court to conduct a joint trial of the Original Petition seeking recovery of past maintenance and miscellaneous case that claimed future maintenance.
The Court said that the question of maintenance is a common issue involved in both the cases therefore, the evidence to be let in and witness to be examined by both sides in the cases are identical.
The Court was hearing an Original Petition against the order dismissing the interim application for joint trial of another Original Petition and MC Case for maintenance.
The bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice C. Pratheep Kumar observed, “joint trial of the above two cases will save much judicial time and energy, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner.”
Advocate Cherian Mathew Poothicote appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Resmi A. appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
In the present case, the Petitioner is the husband of the 1st respondent and respondents 2 and 3 are the minor children born to them. An Original Petition was filed by the respondents against the petitioner for the return of gold, household articles and past maintenance. They have filed a Maintenance Case seeking future maintenance from the petitioner. The Petitioner filed an application before the Family Court praying for joint trial of the OP as well as the MC case. However, he preferred this OP after the Family Court dismissed his application.
The Court mentioned the decision of the division bench of the Kerala High Court in Mukundan v. Dr. Kauyusha, 2013 (2) KLT 981 [2013 (2) KHC 611], where the Court had occasion to consider the scope of the joint trial of an OP an MC case filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and quoted, “After all object of the Act is to ensure speedy justice in relation to issues arising out of family related disputes and therefore, the provisions of the Act should be interpreted bearing in mind such laudable objective that are sought to be achieved by the Act. Therefore, the fact that different appellate or revisional remedies have been provided only requires that if a person is aggrieved by any judgment or order, he will have to pursue his remedies as provided in S.19 and that does not mean that S.19 fetters the Family Courts' power to allow joint trial.”
Accordingly, the Court set aside the order dismissing the joint trial application.
Finally, the Court allowed the Original Petition.
Cause Title: Suneesh Babu v. Maneesha (Neutral Citation: 2024/KER/52702)
