Dismissed

Ajithmon Sasi v. Reshma C Ramesh

Kerala HC12 Nov 2018OP (FC)/602/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in an original petition filed by a petitioner in a matrimonial dispute, dismissed the petition as infructuous because the Family Court had already passed interim orders securing the call details records and attendance registers from Vodafone officials, thereby redressing the petitioner's grievances regarding evidence preservation.

What did the court decide?

The original petition was dismissed as infructuous.

Ajithmon Sasi Vs Reshma C Ramesh — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR

¶6

MONDAY,THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1940

¶7

OP (FC).No. 602 of 2018

¶8

O.P.NO.336/2018 of FAMILY COURT, KATTAPPANA DATED 16-10-2018

¶9

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶10

AJITHMON SASI, AGED 27 YEARS, S/O.SASI, ASWATHY BHAVAN,IDUKKIKAVALA, KATTAPPANA KARA, IDUKKI 682208

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.P.C.ANIL KUMAR SMT.P.SREESHA SRI.MANU.M.THOMAS

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 RESHMA C RAMESH, AGED 27 YEARS, D/O.RAMESH, THURUTHUMANGALATH HOUSE, PANAMPALLY NAGAR P.O.,ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 36

¶14

2 THE NODAL OFFICER, VODAFONE IDEA LTD., VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED, VJ TOWER, VYTTILA P.O., KOCHI, KERALA-682 019

¶15

3 HR MANAGER, VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED, VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED, VJ TOWER, VYTTLA P.O., KOCHI, KERALA-682 019

¶16

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

OP (FC).No. 602 of 2018 : 2 :

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

C.K.Abdul Rehim, J.

¶20

Since the petitioner is seeking only a limited relief to direct the Family Court, Kattappana to have an expeditious disposal of I.A.Nos.762/2018 and 804/2018 in O.P.(HMA)No.336/2018, we think it not necessary to issue notice to the respondents, especially in view of the relief proposed through this judgment.

¶21

2. O.P.(HMA)No.336/2018 was filed by the petitioner against the 1^st respondent herein seeking dissolution of their marriage. In the said original petition, the petitioner filed I.A.No.762/2018 seeking to summon the 'Customer Agreement' and 'Call Details' with respect to the mobile phone bearing number 9846718645, from the respondents 2 and 3, for the last one year period and also to call for the Attendance Register/Log

¶22

OP (FC).No. 602 of 2018 : 3 :

¶23

Book' of the 1^st respondent herein, kept by the 3^rd respondent. The court below passed Ext.P3 order in I.A.No.762/2018 on 16.10.2018, to the extent of issuing notice to the respondents therein. Grievance of the petitioner is that the 'Call Details Records' kept by the 2^nd respondent will get automatically deleted on the expiry of one year period and therefore, until urgent orders are issued in I.A.No.762/2018, the purpose of the petitions will be defeated. It is sated that, the petitioner had filed an application seeking advancement of posting of the case, in order to hear I.A.No.762/2018 on an early date. The said application filed as I.A.No.803/2018 was not considered is the grievance. It is submitted that the petitioner had also filed I.A.No.804/2018 to call for the 'Call Details Records' of mobile No.9846718556. Since the above I.As were not considered, the petitioner is approaching this

¶24

OP (FC).No. 602 of 2018 : 4 :

¶25

Court seeking directions as mentioned above.

¶26

3. When the above case came up for admission, this Court directed the Registry to get a report from the Family Court, Kattappana. The Judge who is holding full additional charge of the Family Court, Kattappana had forwarded a report before this Court, dated 3.11.2018. It is mentioned that, the application for advancing the posting of I.A.No.762/2018, which is filed as I.A.No.803/2018, was already allowed and the case was advanced to 31.10.2018. Meanwhile, I.A.No.804/2018 was also filed to call for the 'Call Details Records'. It is reported that, on 31.10.2018 the court below had already issued a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to take and keep up the CAFs and 'Call Details' of the telephone concerned, for the last one year period, from the date of the said order, and to keep them in safe custody until further orders from the

¶27

OP (FC).No. 602 of 2018 : 5 :

¶28

Family Court. The court below had thereafter posted the matter for hearing to 15.12.2018.

¶29

4. In view of the interim order already passed by the Family Court in I.A.No.804/2018, we consider that, the grievance expressed by the petitioner now stands redressed. Hence we are of the considered opinion that no further direction is warranted in this original petition.

¶30

Accordingly, the above original petition is hereby dismissed as infructuous.

Sd/-

C.K.ABDUL REHIM

JUDGE

Sd/-

T.V.ANILKUMAR

JUDGE

[True copy]

P.A to Judge

Ajithmon Sasi v. Reshma C Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajithmon Sasi v. Reshma C Ramesh

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

Reghu M Vs Nandhini C

Dileep Steephan, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Leo Zacharias Vs the Director General of Police

Shijith Vs P.C.Nima

Govindaraj Vs Vidhya

Anfas Vs Fasmi