Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 5 – 11, 2025

Laju Cherian v Tara Laju and State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 261

Trivandrum Apollo Towers Pvt. Ltd and Another v Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 262

Vaisakh A Nair v The Managing Director, KSRTC and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 263

Santhosh Varkey @ Arattanan v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 264

State of Kerala and Another v Jayesh K. and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 265

The Muppathadam Service Co-operative Bank v The State Chief Information and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 266

Samajam Higher Secondary School and Others v State of Kerala and Others & Connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 267

Babu M. v State of Kerala and Another & Connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 268

Judgments/ Orders This Week

Wife's Right To Maintenance Cannot Be Waived By Way Of Contract: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Laju Cherian v Tara Laju and State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 261

The Kerala High Court has held that a private contract between a husband and wife, where the wife has waived her right to maintenance has no legal standing.

Justice A. Badharudeen relied on various judgment of the Supreme Court and the High Court and observed thus: “...the legal position is very clear on the point that when an agreement is entered into between the wife and the husband, as part of a compromise filed in the Court or otherwise, whereby the wife relinquishes or waives the right to claim maintenance in future from the husband, such agreement is opposed to public policy and it does not preclude her from claiming maintenance.”

Order Passed By Bench In Matter Outside Its Roster Would Be Without Jurisdiction And A Nullity: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Trivandrum Apollo Towers Pvt. Ltd and Another v Union of India and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 262

The Kerala High Court has held that the order passed by a bench in a matter falling outside the scope of its roster or the matters specifically assigned to it, will be considered as an order passed without jurisdiction and therefore a nullity.

The Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu observed, “Thus the dicta of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is clear that any order passed in a matter outside the Roster or not specifically assigned would be without jurisdiction and nullity.”

Impersonation Of Litigant? Kerala High Court Asks Lok Adalats To Verify Identity Of Parties Before Commencing Settlement Proceedings

Case Title: Vaisakh A Nair v The Managing Director, KSRTC and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 263

The Kerala High Court has directed the Kerala Legal Services Authority to issue necessary guidelines to all the District Legal Service Authorities (DLSAs)/ Lok Adalats to ensure that the identity of the parties is ascertained before commencement of the settlement proceedings and passing an award. 

Justice C. S. Dias passed this direction after a party made a claim that an advocate had initiated and settled an accident claim on his name, without his knowledge.

Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Youtuber Arattannan Booked For Making Derogatory Remarks On Female Actors

Case Title: Santhosh Varkey @ Arattanan v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 264

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (6^th May) granted bail to the Youtuber Santhosh Varkey popularly known as Arattannan.

Justice M. B. Snehalatha noted that the prosecution was not pressing that custodial interrogation was necessary in the case. She however said that Santhosh should not make any derogatory remark through any social media platform while he is out on bail.

Appointing Authority Can Decide Not To Fill Up Existing Vacancies On Reasonable And Genuine Grounds: Kerala High Court

Case Title: State of Kerala and Another v Jayesh K. and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 265

The Kerala High Court held that an appointing authority has power to decide not to fill up particular number of vacancies on genuine and reasonable grounds.

The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed: “It is well-settled law that an appointing authority may for good and sufficient reasons take a decision not to fill up the existing vacancies even if a valid rank list is in force. The appointing authority has every right to decide that a particular number of vacancies should not be filled on reasonable and genuine grounds.”

Info Which Though Not In Possession But Can Be Accessed By Co-Operative Society Registrar Can Be Sought Under RTI: Kerala High Court

Case Title: The Muppathadam Service Co-operative Bank v The State Chief Information and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 266

The Kerala High Court has said that information which can be accessed by the Registrar of the Co-operative Society is also an information which can be sought through a Right To Information (RTI) Application.

A division bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu relied on Supreme Court decision in Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited and Others v State of Kerala and Others (2013) which held that the information which is accessible to the Registrar as per the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 can be considered as information which is held or under the control of public authority.

Kerala High Court Affirms Govt Order Allotting Reservation For Persons With Disabilities In Govt-Aided Educational Institutions

Case Title: Samajam Higher Secondary School and Others v State of Kerala and Others & Connected cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 267

The Kerala High Court recently held that there was no need to interfere with the Government order and circular regarding reservation for person with benchmark disabilities in the government-aided educational institutions. Justice T. R. Ravi considered challenges by various schools into the mode of appointment which was not decided in the earlier cases.

Informing An Accused Person Reasons For Arrest Is A Constitutional Requirement, Arrest Is Vitiated Otherwise: Kerala HC

Case Title: Babu M. v State of Kerala and Another & Connected case

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 268

The Kerala High Court in a recent judgment reiterated that informing the person who is arrested is a constitutional requirement in light of Article 22(1) of the Constitution.

Justice Kauser Edappagath relied on Vihaan Kumar v State of Haryana and Others (2025), Pankaj Bansal v Union of India and Others (2023), Prabir Purkayastha v State (2024) and observed that if the grounds are not informed soon after the arrest, it would amount to violation of fundamental right.

Other Important Developments This Week

Kerala High Court Issues Notification Postponing Kerala Judicial Service (Preliminary) Examination 2025

The Registrar of Kerala High Court has issued a notification today informing that the Kerala Judicial Service (Preliminary) Examination scheduled to be held on 18^th May is postponed.