The High Court dismissed a petition challenging a Family Court order that refused to provide a copy of a call list citing privacy, holding that the petitioner could challenge the issue at the time of the final judgment.
The original petition is dismissed.
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 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1942
OP (FC).No.167 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER IN C.A.231/2020 IN OP 524/2019 DATED 04-02-2020 OF FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
P.VIJAYALEKSHMIAMMA AGED 72 YEARS
W/O. MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR, VIJAYA BHAVAN, THURAVOOR P.O. KUTHIYATHODU VILLAGE, KUTHIYATHODU PANCHAYAT, PADINJATTINKARA NORTH MURI, CHERTHALA TALUK 688 532.
BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA)
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
RENJU.R, AGED 37 YEARS
D/O. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, SANJU BHAVAN, PALLIMUKKU, CHINGELI MURI, KADACKAL VILAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KADACKAL P.O. KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 536, REPRESENTED BY HER GUARDIAN AND MOTHER THE NEXT FRIEND RADHAMMA, W/O. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, SANJU BHAVAN, PALLIMUKKU CHINGELI MURI, KADACKAL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KADACKAL P.O. KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 536.
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-032021 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(FC).No.167/2020
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 1st day of March 2021
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J
This original petition was filed on 18.3.2019 by the petitioner in O.P.No.524/2019 on the files of the Family Court, Alappuzha. When this matter came up before this Court, there was no representation and the matter was adjourned with the endorsement “post when moved again”.
O.P.(FC).No.167/2020
3
Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court.
This original petition is dismissed.
Sd/
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
sd/-
True copy
KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE
P.A. To Judge
kp
O.P.(FC).No.167/2020
4
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
| EXHIBIT P1 | A TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED AS O.P. NO. 524/2019 DTD. 18.6.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P2 | A TRUE COPY OF COURT CERTIFICATE DTD. 3.9.2019 ISSUED FROM FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA TO BHARATHI AIRTEL LTD. |
| EXHIBIT P3 | A TRUE COPY OF COVERING LETTER 1.10.2019 ISSUED BY NODAL OFFICER IDEA LTD. |
| EXHIBIT P4 | THE DECODED TOWER LOCATION OF THE CELL IDS DTD. 1.10.2019 PROVIDED BY VODAFONE IDEA LTD. |
| EXHIBIT P5 | A TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO. 1768/2019 DTD. 12.11.2019 IN O.P. NO. 524/2019. |
| EXHIBIT P6 | A TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED IN C.A. NO. 231/2020 IN O.P. NO. 524/2019 OF FAMILY COURT , ALAPPUZHA. |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Family Court's refusal to provide a copy of the call list due to privacy concerns.
P.VIJAYALEKSHMIAMMA
RENJU.R
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
