DEEPA Vs. SASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed against that part of the judgment of the Family Court, Palakkad in O.P. No. 658/2006 dated 23.2.2008 whereby the Family Court refused to consider the claims raised in I.A. Nos. 676/2006 and 1515/2006, while allowing the application for divorce.

(2.) Facts required for disposal of the writ petition are as follows. The petitioner and respondent are wife and husband respectively. Marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 3.9.2003 as per the rituals and custom prevailing in the Hindu community. Petitioner was provided with an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ - and 26 sovereigns of jewellery. The respondent misappropriated the said amount and also a chain weighing 5 1/2 sovereigns and a bangle weighing 1 sovereign. Due to the cruelty and torture at the residence of the respondent demanding more money and jewellery, the petitioner had been taken back to her parental home on 4.12.2003. Thereafter the petitioner filed O.P. No. 658/2006 seeking dissolution of the marriage by and between the parties, on the ground of cruelty. Petitioner also filed an application for interim maintenance, which was allowed directing the respondent to pay the same at the rate of Rs. 750/ - per month, which according to the petitioner, was not complied with by the respondent. Though the respondent was given sufficient time by the Family Court, the respondent was adamant that he will not pay. Therefore, the Family Court struck off the defence of the respondent.

(3.) It is contended that, while so, the petitioner has filed I.A. Nos. 676/2006 and 1515/2006 for return of money and gold ornaments misappropriated by the respondent or to pay its value. Since the defence of the respondent was struck off, the petitioner's evidence was recorded on 15.10.2007 by filing proof affidavit. The Family Court entertained a doubt as to whether in a petition for divorce an interim application for return of money and jewellery would be maintainable. Thereafter petitioner was heard and as directed by the Family Court, judgments relied on was also provided. The case was reserved for judgment to 17.10.2007. On 17.10.2007 the petitioner was not present before the court and therefore the original petition as well as the interlocutory applications were dismissed for default on the said date, vide separate orders. Consequent to which, the petitioner filed application to restore the original petition on 24.10.2007, a copy of which is produced as Ext. P1. The Family Court allowed Ext. P1 and restored the original petition and thereafter allowed the application for divorce by judgment dated 23.2.2008, as evident from Ext. P2. But however the Family Court has not restored I.A. Nos. 676/2006 and 1515/2006. It is thus aggrieved by the order of the Family Court refusing to restore the interlocutory applications and to grant relieves thereunder, this writ petition is filed.