Allowed

Asharaf K.H v. Seena M.A

Kerala HC1 Feb 2017OP (FC)/417/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed the family court original petition contending that the lower court neglected to consider six interlocutory applications filed by the petitioner, directing the trial to remain in abeyance until the lower court addresses them.

What did the court decide?

The original petition was allowed; the family court was directed to consider six specified applications and pass appropriate orders within two months, keeping the trial in abeyance during this period.

Asharaf K.H Vs Seena M.A — Kerala HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/12TH MAGHA, 1938

¶6

OP (FC).No. 417 of 2015 (R)

¶7

(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 1541/2012 of FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM)

¶8

PETITIONER(S):

¶9

ASHARAF K.H., 46 years, S/O. HASSAINAR K.P., KIZHAKKEKKARA HOUSE, VATTEKKUNNAM, EDAPALLY NORTH, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. SEENA M.A., 36 years, D/O.M.M.ABDUL KAREEM, MULLAPPILLY HOUSE, NEDUMTHODE, MUDICKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR - 683 547, NOW RESIDING AT PERIYAR HERITAGE, FLAT NO. A1 CE, COMPANYPADY, ALUVA -683 106.

¶13

2. NIDA. A. NAHIA (MINOR), AGED 13 YEARS, D/O.SEENA, MULLAPPILLY HOUSE, NEDUMTHODE, MUDICKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR - 683 547, NOW RESIDING AT PERIYAR HERITAGE, FLAT NO. A1 CE, COMPANYPADY, ALUVA -683 106, REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN SEENA-DO-

¶14

3. KENZ A. NAHIA (MINOR), AGED 7 YEARS, S/O. SEENA, MULLAPPILLY HOUSE, NEDUMTHODE, MUDICKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR - 683 547, NOW RESIDING AT PERIYAR HERITAGE, FLAT NO. A1 CE, COMPANYPADY, ALUVA -683 106, REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN SEENA-DO-

¶15

4. K.P. HASSAINAR, 76 YEARS, KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE, VATTEKKUNNAM, EDAPALLY NORTH, THRIKKAKKARA NORTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM - 682 024.

¶16

5. SULAIKHA, 70 YEARS, W/O.K.P.HASSAINAR, -DO-, KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE, VATTEKKUNNAM, EDAPALLY NORTH, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM - 682 024.

¶17

R4&5 BY ADVS. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA

¶18

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ss

¶19

A.M.SHAFFIQUE & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.

¶20

Original Petition (F.C.)No.417 of 2015

¶21

Dated this the 1^st day of February, 2017

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

A.M.Shaffique, J

¶24

Petitioner is the respondent in O.P.No.1541/2012 pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam. During pendency of the original petition, petitioner filed applications as I.A.Nos.1793/2015, 1794/2015, 1795/2015, 2571/2015, 2572/2015 and 2574/2015 (Exts.P8 to P14). It is submitted that, none of the applications were considered and therefore the petitioner again filed I.A.Nos.2573/2015 for early hearing before commencing evidence in the case. It is submitted that the relief sought for in the above applications were highly necessary for a proper adjudication of the case. In the meantime, the Family Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take evidence and at this stage the petitioner had approached this court.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶26

We are of the view that an opportunity ought to have been

¶27

granted for the petitioner to take pre-trial steps as claimed in the application. When an interlocutory application is filed at any stage of the proceedings, it is incumbent on the part of the Family Court to consider the same and pass an order before proceeding with trial of the case. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that the

¶28

Original Petition (F.C.)No.417 of 2015

¶29

¶30

original petition has to be allowed. Accordingly we allow the original petition as under:

¶31

The Family Court shall consider IA Nos.1793/2015, 1794/2015, 1795/2015, 2571/2015, 2572/2015 and 2574/2015 and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. Until such time, the trial of the case shall be kept in abeyance.

¶32

Sd/- (A.M.Shaffique, Judge)

¶33

Sd/- (K. Ramakrishnan, Judge)

¶34

//True Copy//

¶35

P.A. to Judge

¶36

Asharaf K.H v. Seena M.A

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asharaf K.H v. Seena M.A

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.Raman Vs Harikumar

Dr. Rose Sajitha George Vs Dr. Jose Joseph

Dr. Mavua v/S/ Vs Dr. Jose Joseph

Dr.K.Pavithran Vs Dr.Aravindh.S

Prejith K. Balakrishnan Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Sidhik Vs State of Kerala