Disposed

Jose Mathew v. Tinu Mathew Peediackal

Kerala HC15 Sept 2022OP (FC)/534/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought under Article 227 a direction to the Family Court to decide jurisdiction in a custody dispute expeditiously. Holding that early resolution is essential for children's welfare under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, the Court directed the Family Court to consider the objection within two weeks and dispose within three weeks from September 19, 2022. Notice to respondent dis

What did the court decide?

The Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor, directed to consider the interlocutory application regarding jurisdiction on September 19, 2022, and dispose of it within three weeks from that date.

Jose Mathew Vs Tinu Mathew Peediackal — Child Custody and Guardianship | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 24TH BHADRA, 1944

¶7

O.P.(FC) NO. 534 OF 2022

¶8

SPEEDY DISPOSAL OF I.A.NO.3 OF 2022 IN OP(GW) NO.696 OF 2021 OF FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM

¶9

PETITIONER:

¶10

JOSE MATHEW, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O MATHEW JOSE MANEMELHOUSE, VEEKSHANAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM NOTH P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682018.

¶11

BY ADVS. T.M.CHANDRAN S.SUJITH

¶12

RESPONDENT:

¶13

TINU MATHEW PEEDIACKAL AGED 32 YEARS, D/O MATHEW P.KURIAN, PEEDIACKAL HOUSE, ATHIRAMPURHA, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686562.

¶14

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

O.P. (FC) No.534 of 2022

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Ajithkumar, J.

¶19

The petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife. The respondent filed O.P.(G&W) No.696 of 2021 before the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor for custody of their two minor children. The petitioner entered appearance and filed Ext.P6 interlocutory application contending that the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor, has no jurisdiction to entertain O.P.(G&W) No.696 of 2021 and the question of jurisdiction should be decided as a preliminary issue. The petitioner has filed this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor to consider and dispose of Ext.P6 application within a time fixed by this Court.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Considering the relief proposed to be granted, service of notice on the respondent is dispensed with.

¶21

The grievance of the petitioner is that despite his

¶22

request for a speedy disposal of Ext.P6 application, I.A.No.3

¶23

¶24

O.P. (FC) No.534 of 2022

¶25

of 2022 in O.P.(G&W) No.696 of 2021, the same has yet to be taken up for consideration. The dispute being related to the custody of the children, an expeditious decision on the question of jurisdiction is highly essential and hence the petitioner was compelled to approach this Court with this Original Petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that I.A.No.3 of 2022 now stands posted for consideration to 19.09.2022.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶27

and considered the materials on record, we are of the view that a direction to the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor as requested by the petitioner is highly essential, since an early decision on the question of jurisdiction is required to protect the interest of the children, in the light of the provisions of the Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

¶28

In the said circumstances, we dispose of this Original Petition directing the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor to consider I.A.No.3 of 2022 in O.P.(G&W) No.696

¶29

¶30

O.P. (FC) No.534 of 2022

¶31

of 2021 (Ext.P6) on 19.09.2022 itself and to dispose of the same within a period of three weeks from the said date.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶34

Sd/- P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE

¶35

dkr

¶36

¶37

O.P. (FC) No.534 of 2022

¶38

APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 534/2022

¶39

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶40

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 19-09-2020 ISSUED BY HEADMISTRESS, RAJAGIRI KINDERGARTEN, KALAMASSERY

¶41

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 12-07-2021 FILED BY WIFE FOR CUSTODY OF CHILDREN BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ETTUMANUR IN 0.P.(G&W).696/2021

¶42

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 12-07-2021 FILED FOR INTERIM CUSTODY BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ETTUMANUR IN IA I/21 IN 0.P(G&W).696/2021

¶43

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 27-102021 FILED BY THE HUSBAND IN I.A.1/2021 IN 0.P.(G&W).696/2021

¶44

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION DATED JUNE 2022 FILED BY HUSBAND TO THE PETITION FOR CUSTODY IN O.P.(G&W) 696/2021

¶45

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY I.A.3 /2022 IN O.P.(G&W) 696/2021 DATED 06-08-2022 FILED BY HUSBAND BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ETTUMANUR PRAYING TO DECIDE THE ISSUE OF TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

Jose Mathew v. Tinu Mathew Peediackal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose Mathew v. Tinu Mathew Peediackal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.M.Antony Vs Valiyakath Kunjimuhammed

Suma Vs Somakumar

Sreejith Raveendran Vs Soorya P R

Omalloor Chakkulathukavu Devi Kshethra Advisory Committee Vs the Travancore Devaswom Board

Sushama Vs Anju Prakash

Suramya Vs Vishnu.v