Mother and father filed a matrimonial appeal against a custodial order. Father also sought condonation of a 797-day delay. The Court held that Family Court considerations were justified and dismissed the delay application, rejecting the appeal.
The application for condonation of 797-day delay was dismissed, and the matrimonial appeal was rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2011 / 23RD ASHADHA 1933
Mat.Appeal.No. 534 of 2011() ----------------------------------------OP (G&W).49/2007 OF FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA ....................
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT
--------------------------------------
NAZEER HUSSAIN, S/O.KASSIM HUSSAIN, NAZEER MANZIL, PIPE LANE ROAD, PEROORKKADA, PEROORKKADA VILLAGE.
BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER, SMT.M.JAYASREE.
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER
----------------------------------------
SHAHIDA, D/O.ABDUL GAFOOR, JAMEELA MANZIL, VATTAYAL WARD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 001.
BY
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
&
N.K.Balakrishnan, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Mat.Appeal No.534 of 2011 & I.A.No.1463 of 2011
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 14th day of July, 2011.
Judgment
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1.This matrimonial appeal, with an application for condonation of delay of 797 days, is filed against an order by which the custody of a female child is given to the mother. The child was 5 years when the application was filed in 2007. The father of the child contested the proceedings by filing counter affidavit. He authorised his brother with a power of attorney and went to the Gulf countries. Later, the case was transferred to Family Court, Alappuzha from Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The Family Court, Alappuzha noticed that neither the appellant before us nor his power of attorney holder appeared in the Family Court at Alappuzha. Yet, apart from the
MA534/11 -: 2 :-
MA534/11 -: 3 :-
activity without prior permission of the Family Court. With such safety being provided as per the order, we find that there is no ground to entertain the appeal on merits. Having looked into the merits of the appeal, we are satisfied that the best interest of the child has been taken due care of by the Family Court.
MA534/11 -: 4 :-
mother of his daughter. We do not find any ground to accept the explanation for the delay. No sufficient cause is shown to condone the delay.
Resultantly, we dismiss the application seeking condonation of delay and as its consequence, reject the appeal.
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,
Judge.
N.K.Balakrishnan, Judge.
Sha/1607
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Best Interest of the Child would be best served by the statutory custodial orders.
Whether sufficient cause is shown to condone the delay of 797 days.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
NAZEER HUSSAIN
SHAHIDA
THOTTATHIL B.Radhakrishnan
N.K.Balakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
