Disposed

Rajendran v. Jancy

Kerala HC20 Sept 2021OP (FC)/401/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court observed a non-consideration of an interlocutory application by the Family Court regarding guardianship. The judges directed the Family Court to pass appropriate orders on the application within a set timeframe, while the existing interim restraint continues.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Family Court to pass orders on I.A No.2558 of 2021 within the outer limit fixed by the Division Bench in Shiju Joy v. Nisha.

Rajendran Vs Jancy — Child Custody and Guardianship | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 29TH BHADRA, 1943
OP (FC) NO. 401 OF 2021

¶4

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN GOP 1272/2021 OF FAMILY
COURT,ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

RAJENDRAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. CHANDRAN, VALIYAPARAMBIL
HOUSE, PUTHANVELIKKARA P. O., ERNAKULAM – 683 594.

¶7

BY ADVS.
SHINOJ.K.N
C.K.RAPHEEQUE
K.B.NIDHINKUMAR

¶8

RESPONDENT:

¶9

JANCY, AGED 41 YEARS, D/O. JAYAPRAKASH, KALLUMADATHIL
HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM - 682 509.

¶10

BY ADVS.
P.HARIDAS
BIJU HARIHARAN
P.C.SHIJIN
RISHIKESH HARIDAS

¶11

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

OP (FC) NO. 401 OF 2021

¶13

¶14

J U D G M E N T

¶15

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J

¶16

The petitioner herein is the father of two children namely, Kailas V Rajendran and Neha V Rajendran. The children were born in the wedlock with the respondent. There arose a dispute in regard to the guardianship and custody. The petitioner approached the Family Court, Ernakulam with GOP No.1272 of 2021. In that original petition, he filed an I.A No.2558 of 2021 to restrain the respondent from taking the minor child abroad. On account of non consideration of the interlocutory application, the petitioner has approached this Court.

¶17

This Court on 9.08.2021, granted an interim order restraining the respondent from taking the minor child to abroad. It is appropriate that the Family Court shall consider and pass orders on the application after hearing both sides. We direct the Family Court to pass appropriate orders in I.A No.2558 of 2021 within the outer limit fixed by the Division Bench of this Court in Shiju Joy v. Nisha [2021 (2) KLT 607].

¶18

OP (FC) NO. 401 OF 2021

¶19

¶20

In the meanwhile, the interim order already passed

¶21

will continue till the disposal of the interlocutory application by the Family Court.

¶22

This Original Petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

¶30

OP (FC) NO. 401 OF 2021

¶31

¶32

APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 401/2021

¶33

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE GO (P) 1272 OF 2021 ALONG
WITH I.A N O.2558 FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY
COURT, ERNAKULAM.

Rajendran v. Jancy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendran v. Jancy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalu, Vs Sheeja

Biju Paul Vs Roobi Paul

Roobi Vs Biju Paul

Sindhu P.V Vs Sreejith Balakrishnan

Ajeesh.P.M Vs Nima K.K

Anitha Vs Sreejith