Meenu, v. Prabhu
Case brief
What is this about?
High Court disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 challenging delays in a Family Court matrimonial case. It directed the Family Court to dispose of the underlying matter within four months, noting protraction was unjustifiable due to one party's absence from counselling.
What did the court decide?
Direction to Family Court, Tirur to dispose of O.P.No.237/2017 within four months.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.V.ANILKUMAR
MONDAY ,THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 1ST MAGHA, 1940
OP (FC).No. 693 of 2018
O.P.NO.237/2017 of FAMILY COURT, TIRUR
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
MEENU, AGED 23 YEARS, D/O.SURENDRAN, KOLAKATTU HOUSE, NANNAMMUKKU P.O., KALLOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679575.
BY ADV. SRI.BETSON P.KUNJAPPAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to direct the Family Court to dispose of the underlying case within a fixed time frame due to delays caused by one party's absence.
How Rule 25 applies when a party fails to attend counselling.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
MEENU
- respondent
PRABHU
Coram
C.K.ABDUL REHIM
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court