Kerala High Court Family Law Digest 2023

[Joint Will] Property Of Only Deceased Testator Bound By Disposition; Does Not Operate Against Property Of Surviving Testator Till Death: Kerala HCCase Title: Jayadevi v. Narayana Pilla & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 6The Kerala High Court laid down that on the death of one among the testators, either in the case of joint Will or a mutual Will, the property left out by the deceased testator included in the Will alone would stand bound by the disposition made therein and it would not operate as against the property of the other testator, who is alive, till his/her death.Justice P. Somarajan observed that where a clause has been incorporated in the Will stating that the surviving testator will not have any right to alter any of the dispositions made under the Will, the same should not be read in substitute of requirement of a mutual Will, unless it is supported by reciprocal demise.Court Retains Power To Execute Its Maintenance Order Against Person Residing Outside Its Jurisdiction: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Aswathi & Anr. v. Rajeesh Raman & Anr. and Betty Philip v. William ChackoCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 20The Kerala High Court held that even though an order of maintenance may be enforceable at the place where the person - against whom it is made - resides, the court which passed the order also retains the power to execute it outside the jurisdiction where such person is residing.The Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen considered the legal question as to whether a court which passed an order of maintenance under Section 125 and 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is competent to execute the order against a person, who has been residing in a place outside its jurisdiction."...it is necessary in the interests of justice to visualise the plight of poor wife and children or the parents, as the case may be, if a view taken to the effect that each and every execution proceedings to enforce order of maintenance obtained by the wife, children and parents at the place where the person against whom the order was made. If such a proposition is declared, a clever husband or son or daughter, as the case may be, could very well shift their residence, outside the jurisdiction of the court where the order of maintenance sought to be executed, so as to defeat the enforcement of the order. No doubt, it may be easy for them to shift their residence periodically, to defeat the enforcement of the maintenance order," the court observed.Can't Browbeat Judges To Get Things Done Your Way: Kerala High Court To Woman On Allegations Of Bias Against Family Court In Divorce CaseCase Title: RB. v. AB.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 44The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a woman's petition seeking transfer of a divorce case on the ground of alleged bias and favouritism by the Family Court Judge. The divorce case has been filed by her husband.Justice C.S. Dias said the petitioner, a woman lawyer, has made a "scathing attack" on the Family Court Judge by questioning his integrity, honesty and impartiality, on the sole reason that he had passed a string of orders against her.S.125 CrPC | Major Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Maintenance From Father Merely On Ground That She Is Unable To Maintain Herself: Kerala HCCase Title: Gireesh Kumar N v. Rajani K V and Anr.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 46The Kerala High Court reiterated that an unmarried daughter who attained majority cannot claim maintenance from her father under Section 125(1) CrPC, merely on the ground that she does not have means for her sustenance.The Court observed that an unmarried daughter unable to maintain herself by reason of any physical, mental abnormality or injury is entitled to claiming maintenance under Section 125(1) CrPC, however, pleadings and evidence in this regard are mandatory.[Special Marriage Act] Youngsters Largely Employed Abroad, 30 Days Mandatory Residence & Subsequent Waiting Period May Need Relook: Kerala HCCase Title: Bijy Paul v. The Marriage Officer and Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 49A Petition has been recently moved before the Kerala High Court challenging the provision of the Special Marriage Act, to the extent that it mandates a waiting period of 30 days after submission of the notice of intended marriage.The Writ Petition was filed seeking a declaration that the mandatory waiting period is unconstitutional or a declaration that the 30 days period after submission of a notice of intended marriage mentioned in Section 6 and all consequential provisions under the Act are only directory and cannot be insisted upon.Justice V G Arun noting that the matter requires detailed consideration, observed that,A lot of changes and liberalisation has taken place even in our customs and practices. Yet another aspect is that a large number of youngsters are employed abroad. Such people come back to their native place only on short vacations and instances are many where the marriage is conducted during the short holidays. The...

Kerala High Court Family Law Digest 2023

Navya Benny

Tags