High Court Kerala High Court

Subaida vs Abdul Azeez on 30 October, 2009

Kerala High Court
Subaida vs Abdul Azeez on 30 October, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Mat.Appeal.No. 731 of 2008()


1. SUBAIDA,W/O.ABDUL AZEEZ,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. AZEENA,D/O.ABDUL AZEEZ,

                        Vs



1. ABDUL AZEEZ,(RAJAN),
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.DINESH

                For Respondent  :SRI.JOMY GEORGE

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI

 Dated :30/10/2009

 O R D E R
                R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
         --------------------------------------------------
                MAT.APPEAL No.731 OF 2008
       -----------------------------------------------------
           DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009

                           J U D G M E N T

Basant, J.

Aggrieved by the order of the Family Court, dismissing their

application for maintenance and marriage expenses, for deafult,

the appellants have come before this Court. The appellants are

– a mother aged 53 years and her daughter aged 30 years. The

respondent herein is their husband/father.

2. The matter was ripe for hearing. On a day when the

matter came up for hearing, the respondent herein was not

present. The court below noted the absence of the respondent

and posted the case for disposal. On such date to which the case

was posted for disposal, the respondent filed an application for

review. On that day, the appellants and their counsel were not

present. The court below allowed the review petition and

immediately took up O.P.No.57/2006 for consideration and

dismissed the same for default.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that

such a hasty and hurried disposal for default was not justified.

Mat.A.No.731/08 -2-

The court below did not show the compassion and sympathy

which a Family Court must imbibe and display to discharge its

onerous responsibilities under the Act.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondent.

5. We need not expatiate. We are satisfied that there is

merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants.

On a date on which the case was posted for consideration of the

review application, it was not at all necessary to dispose of the

O.P, for default on the part of the claimants/appellants herein.

We are satisfied that the impugned order warrants interference

invoking our appellate jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Family

Courts Act.

6. In the result:

(a) this appeal is allowed.

(b) the impugned order is set aside.

(c) the Family Court is directed to dispose of

O.P.No.57/2006 afresh in accordance with

law, as expeditiously as possible – at any rate

within a period of three months from

Mat.A.No.731/08 -3-

23.11.2009 on which date the parties shall

appear before the Family Court to proceed

further with the matter.

7. Hand over copy of this judgment to the learned

counsel for both sides. The parties and their counsel shall be

present before the Family Court on 23.11.2009. Compliance

shall be reported to this Court.

R.BASANT, JUDGE.

M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.

dsn