Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 17 To April 23, 2023

Nominal Index [Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 195-200]XXX & Anr. v. YYY 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 195The Trivandrum Chamber of Commerce and Industry & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 196Bosco Louis V State of Kerala, Pauly Vadakkan v. Lulu International Shopping Mall Pvt Ltd 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 197 Anu Mathew V State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 198Xavier T.J v State Of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 199XXX & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 200Judgments/Order This WeekEvery Unmarried Daughter Has Right To Get Reasonable Marriage Expenses From Her Father Irrespective Of Religion: Kerala High CourtCase Title: XXX & Anr. v. YYY Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 195The Kerala High Court recently considered the question as to whether there is a provision entitling a Christian daughter to realize marriage expenses from the immovable property of her father or the profits therefrom, and answered the same in the affirmative. The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar perused the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, as well as the Muslim position on the aspect as revealed in Ismayil v. Fathima & Anr. (2011), and observed that,"The right of an unmarried daughter to get reasonable expenses concerning her marriage from her father cannot have a religious shade. It is a right of every unmarried daughter irrespective of her religion. There cannot be a discriminatory exclusion from claiming such a right based on one’s religion".Kerala High Court Directs State To Comply With Previous Directions To Prevent Unlawful Protests In Public SpacesCase Title: The Trivandrum Chamber of Commerce and Industry & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 196The Kerala High Court recently directed the State machinery to comply with the directions issued by the Apex court as well as the High Court time and again regarding the controlling of unlawful protests, campaigns, and other such assembly of people being staged at public spaces meant for public use. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Murali Purushothaman was considering a public interest litigation seeking the issuance of further directions to the competent State and Police authorities to remove unlawful assemblies of people around the Raj Bhavan and State Secretariat areas, Thiruvananthapuram, and thus formulate guidelines with respect to the earmarking of certain public areas in the State for the purpose of holding mass assemblies.Building Owner Can Decide If Parking Fees Is To Be Levied From Customers Utilizing Its Shopping Facility: Kerala High Court In Plea Against Lulu MalCase Title: Bosco Louis V State of Kerala, Pauly Vadakkan v. Lulu International Shopping Mall Pvt Ltd Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 197The Kerala High Court recently held that it is up to the building owner to determine whether or not to charge customers for parking their vehicles while using the shopping facility and services offered in the building. However, the court also held that for operating multilevel parking facilities around the commercial establishment that operate as stand-alone buildings used for parking, a licence under Section 475 of Kerala Municipality Act is required.A single bench of Justice V G Arun was hearing two writ petitions challenging the collection of parking fees from vehicles parked in the parking area of Lulu Shopping Mall at Edappally in Kochi. The petitions sought for a refund of the money collected and also for a direction to refrain the mall from collecting any parking fee. The court held that: “collection of fees from the vehicles parking in the 1083 parking slots in the basement of Lulu Mall is legal, but collection of fees from vehicles parking in the multilevel parking facility, without obtaining a licence under Section 475 of the Kerala Municipality Act, is illegal. If the company intends to utilise the multilevel parking facility near the shopping mall and collect parking fees from persons using the facility, that can be done only under a licence issued in terms of Section 475 of the Act.”Granting Anticipatory Bail To Persons Who Flee Country Being Aware Of FIR Registered Against Them Is Not Proper: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Anu Mathew V State of Kerala Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 198The Kerala High Court recently held that it may not be appropriate to grant anticipatory bail in circumstances where the accused fled the country being fully aware of a non-bailable offence registered against him/her. The court also observed that while considering a bail application filed by an accused who is abroad, courts must consider imposing the condition that the accused shall be available for interrogation by a Police Officer, as and when required and that the accused shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.A division bench of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice C S Sudha observed: “if such an accused had absconded...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 17 To April 23, 2023

Navya Benny

Tags