Bino Joseph, v. Neena Cherian
Case brief
What is this about?
In a supervisory writ petition under Article 227, the petitioner challenged a Family Court order dismissing an application to accept property as security for a decree. The High Court held that as the submission of supporting documents occurred after the order was passed, there was no manifest error warranting interference, and dismissed the petition.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2023/3RD MAGHA, 1944
OP (FC) NO. 38 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.07.2022 IN I.A.NO.18 OF 2022
IN O.P.NO.1335 OF 2017 OF THE FAMILY COURT, ETTUMANOOR,
KOTTAYAM
PETITIONER/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
BINO JOSEPH, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. LATE
PATHIPARAMPIL V JOSEPH, PATHIPARAMPIL HOUSE,
CHANGANASSERY P O, VAZHAPALLY VILLAGE,
CHANGANASSERY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN -
686103
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to set aside the Family Court's order dismissing an interlocutory application to accept security.
Whether the Family Court committed manifest error by not considering the petitioner's mother's affidavit and fair value notification which were submitted after the order was passed.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Bino Joseph
- respondent
Neena Cherian
Coram
Anil K.Narendran
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court