Parties To Litigation Entitled To Be Informed Of Reasons For Denial Of Their Claim : Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court on Monday observed that a party to litigation is entitled to be informed of the reasons behind the denial of their claims. Thus, setting aside a non-speaking order passed by the Family Court, Justice Mary Joseph observed that although there is no rule that all reliefs sought for should be allowed but, a party is qualified to know why their relief was denied. "There is...
The Kerala High Court on Monday observed that a party to litigation is entitled to be informed of the reasons behind the denial of their claims.
Thus, setting aside a non-speaking order passed by the Family Court, Justice Mary Joseph observed that although there is no rule that all reliefs sought for should be allowed but, a party is qualified to know why their relief was denied.
"There is no hard and fast rule that all claims of the parties must be allowed. But, the party has a right to be informed of the reasons for denial of his/her claim or for prolonging its consideration to a future date. Since such a reason is not stated in the impugned order, it is liable to fail."
The impugned order directed the respondent-husband to pay Rs.6,000/- as interim maintenance allowance to the child till disposal of the plea. However, the wife was denied any interim maintenance allowance without assigning any reasons.
Aggrieved by this, the petitioner (wife) approached the High Court through Advocates S. Sunil Kumar and B.S. Suraj Krishna.
The respondents were represented by Advocate Aravind V. Mathew.
The Court noted that the reason for declining to grant interim maintenance allowance to the wife was not revealed from the impugned order and that for this reason, it was a non-speaking order.
Accordingly, the Judge deemed it fit to allow the plea in part, without even serving notice to the 2nd respondent (husband).
Thereby, the impugned order was set aside to the extent that it directed adjudication of the wife's claim for interim maintenance allowance in the M.C.
The direction to pay Rs.6,000/- as interim maintenance allowance to the child was not interfered with.
As such, the Family Court was directed to consider the petitioner's claim for interim maintenance allowance and pass appropriate orders (either declining or allowing the claim) stating sufficient and satisfactory reasons within a period of 3 weeks.
Case Title: Jiji C. Senan & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 50