Dismissed

Moli Thomas v. Keshab Chand

Kerala HC28 Sept 2012OP (FC)/3150/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam addressed an original petition filed for the transfer of a family court proceeding. The petitioner claimed apprehension of bias by the Presiding Officer. Due to an impending change in the Presiding Officer, the court decided not to examine the merits and dismissed the petition as not entertained.

What did the court decide?

Null. The petition was dismissed as not entertained.

Moli Thomas Vs Keshab Chand — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/6TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

OP (FC).No. 3150 of 2012 (R)

¶6

OP.169/2012 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD.

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

MOLI THOMAS, D/O.ELIKUTTY THOMAS, KESAB MANDIRAM, NEDUMANGHADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN MANNALI.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

KESAB CHAND, S/O.SUKUMARAN, KESAB MANDIRAM, NEDUMANGHADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 137..

¶12

¶13

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rs.

¶15

OP (FC).No. 3150 of 2012 (R)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶18

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 26/07/2012. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 21/08/2012.

¶19

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &

¶24

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

¶25

O.P.(FC) No. 3150 OF 2012

¶26

Dated this the 28^th day of September, 2012

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J

¶29

This original petition filed by the respondent in O.P.169 of 2012 on the files of the Family Court, Nedumangad seeks transfer of that O.P. from Family Court, Nedumangad to any other Family Court in the Kerala State on the ground that the petitioner apprehends that the Presiding Officer of the Family Court, Nedumangad is biased against her. We are not inclined to examine the merits of the allegations in the O.P. or the genuineness of the apprehensions in the minds of the petitioner. We come to understand that Family Court, Nedumangad will shortly have a new Presiding Officer. Under these circumstances

¶30

O.P.(FC) No. 3150 OF 2012

¶31

-:2:-

¶32

we do not entertain this original petition. Hence, we dismiss

¶33

this original petition.

¶34

Sd/- ( PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) Sd/- (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE)

¶35

ul/-

¶36

[True copy]

¶37

P.S. to Judge.

Moli Thomas v. Keshab Chand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moli Thomas v. Keshab Chand

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

Thomas Varghese Vs Anila Maria Kurian

Thomas Varghese and Others Vs Anila Mariya Kurian

Johnson Jose Vs Lovely Thomas

Krishna Priya G. Menon Vs K.P.Viju

Anil Kumar Vs Sandhya

Sudhan Kumar Vs Priya.J