Partly allowed

Narendranath @ Nandu v. Neethu

Kerala HC19 Nov 2010OP (FC)/677/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a petition for copies of Family Court orders and an amendment application as infructuous. The petitioner was permitted to file separate proceedings to challenge the disputed orders.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed as infructuous; petitioner permitted to initiate separate proceedings to challenge Exts.P5, P6, and P7; judgment deferred in two other petitions.

Narendranath @ Nandu Vs Neethu — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶3

FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932

¶4

OP (FC).No. 677 of 2010(R) -------------------------OP.898/2008 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA ....................

¶5

PETITIONER

¶6

¶7

NARENDRANATH @ NANDU, AGED 34, S/O. MUKUNDAN MENON, PRADHANA VEEDU, WARD NO.21, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ALUVA MUNICIPALITY.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS SMT.S.SIKKY

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

¶11

NEETHU, AGED 25 YEARS, W/O. NARENDRANATH @ NANDU, NOW RESIDING AT ANANDA BHAVAN, ITHALA P.O. MANKUZHI MURI PAZHAVANGADI VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK, FROM 507-G-VRINDAVAN APARTMENT, VYTTILA, KOCHI 682 519.

¶12

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶14

O.P.(F.C).No. 677 OF 2010

¶15

Dated this the 19^th day of November, 2010

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Pius C.Kuriakose, J.

¶18

The only prayer made in this original petition is for issuance of a direction to the Family Court, Thiruvalla, to issue copies of certain interlocutory orders passed by the Family Court and to defer the disposal of the original petitions pending before that court. This Court called for the report from the learned Judge of the Family Court. Accordingly, the report was submitted before this court by the learned Subordinate Judge. On the basis of that report, this Court passed the following order on 16/11/2010.

¶19

“We have perused the report dated

¶20

15/11/2010 submitted by the Family Court, Thiruvalla. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to ascertain whether copies have already been furnished. If not, the petitioner shall take necessary steps to take the copies from the court after

¶21

O.P.(FC).No.677/2010

¶22

¶23

complying with the necessary formalities. Call on 19/11/2010. “

¶24

Today, the petitioner has filed I.A. No. 16070/2010

¶25

seeking amendment of the original petition so as to incorporate the prayer for setting aside Exts.P5, P6 and P7 which are orders passed by the Family Court in the I.As mentioned in the original petition. We are not inclined to grant the amendment application. We dispose of the original petition as having become infructous. However, the remedy of the petitioner to initiate separate proceeding for challenging Exts.P5, P6 and P7 produced along with the amendment application is not foreclosed. If the learned Judge of the Family Court has not passed judgment in O.P.Nos. 897 & 898/2008 already, the learned Judge will defer delivery of the judgment in those two original petitions for a period of seven days from today.

¶26

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE

¶27

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE

¶28

dpk

Narendranath @ Nandu v. Neethu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendranath @ Nandu v. Neethu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.P.Karunakaran Nair Vs R.Sudhamani Amma and Another

Ittimathew Vs Rosily

State Vs Kalyani Amma Rugmini Amma

Juga Bhal Vs P.C.Narendran

Payyanat Devaki Vs Ovintakath Kurukkandiyil Fousiya

V. Hashim Vs Seevayi Abdul Salam