Kerala High Court
Subin Vargheese Thomas vs Smitha Mary John on 13 August, 2019
Bench: K.Harilal, Annie John
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANNIE JOHN
TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1941
OP (FC).No.498 OF 2019
OP(DIV) NO. 1611/2017 OF FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM
PETITIONER:
SUBIN VARGHEESE THOMAS,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O.M.V.THOMAS, MANALEL HOUSE, T.C.11/1042, KUNNIL LANE,
PAROTTUKONAM, NALANCHIRA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN-695 015.
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.RAJENDRAN NAIR
SMT.M.SANTHY
RESPONDENT:
SMITHA MARY JOHN,
AGED 36 YEARS,
D/O.T.P.JOHN, T.C.5/1198,THOPPIL VEEDU, SHA LANE,
PEROORKKADA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 005.
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P. (FC) No. 498/2019 :2:
JUDGMENT
Harilal, J.
The petitioner is the petitioner in OP (Divorce) No. 1611 of 2017 pending before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The aforesaid OP was filed seeking a decree for dissolution of marriage. Both the petitioner and the respondent are working in USA. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the said OP was filed in the year 2017 and two years have elapsed thereafter, service of notice has not been effected so far.
2. According to the petitioner, now the respondent has come to India and she is at her family house at Thiruvananthapuram and she will return within a short span of time. Though the petitioner has made a request before the Family Court to re-issue summons to the respondent through special messenger or by substituted service of notice, before the respondent leaves India, the Family Court has declined the same stating that there is no provision for the same. The petitioner, therefore, seeks a direction to the Family Court issue an emergent notice to the respondent at the earliest, so as to effect service of notice before the respondent leaves India.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. On a combined reading of Sections 84 and 101 of the Civil Rules of Practice, we find that those provisions are intended for the O.P. (FC) No. 498/2019 :3: execution of the emergent notice to the respondent by deputing a special Process Server. In the instant case, at present the respondent is in her family house at Thiruvananthapuram, within the jurisdiction of the Family Court and if notice is served to her before she leaves India, the OP itself can be disposed of at the earliest and thereby both parties are benefited.
5. In view of the aforesaid provision, the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram is hereby directed to depute a special Process Server by invoking the provisions under Sections 84 and 101 of the Civil Rules of Practice to serve notice to the respondent in O.P (Divorce) No. 1611 of 2017 at her family house at Thiruvananthapuram at the earliest, at any rate within three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall take proper steps for the same forthwith.
This OP(FC) is disposed of as above.
sd/- K. HARILAL, JUDGE.
/-
sd/- ANNIE JOHN, JUDGE.
Rv O.P. (FC) No. 498/2019 :4: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT OF AMERICAN SAMOA DATED 31.3.2014.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF PETITION OP(DIVORCE)1611/2017 OF FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF DOCKET FILE OF PETITIONER'S ADVOCATE IN OP.1611/2017.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /True Copy/ PS to Judge.