Vinod v. Sari
Case brief
What is this about?
This order addresses a failure by the Family Court to communicate an interim injunction order to the Sub Registrar. The High Court directed the Family Court to intimate the order and dispensed with notice to the respondents, mandating service on the respondent's counsel in the lower court.
What did the court decide?
Directed Family Court to intimate order to Sub Registrar; petitioner to serve copy on respondent's counsel at Family Court.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 18TH BHADRA, 1943
O.P .(FC) NO. 446 OF 2021
(AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 713/2021 OF FAMILY COURT,
MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA)
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
VINOD, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. VISWANATHAN,
ALAMPALLIL HOUSE, PILAPPUZHA MURI, HARIPAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA -688 011
BY ADVS.
SHABU SREEDHARAN
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Family Court should intimate an existing interim injunction order to the Sub Registrar when the Petitioner approached the Registrar directly without court communication.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
VINOD
- respondent
SARI
- respondent
DEVADAS
- respondent
SELEENA
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court