Allowed

Shamshad Begum v. Bee Jon Bee

Telangana HC23 Apr 2010CRP/745/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an order directing police assistance to implement a family court custody decree. The Court held the trial court exceeded jurisdiction for not issuing notice to non-parties, set aside the order, and remanded the matter.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order passed by the trial court is set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial court to pass appropriate orders after issuing notice to all parties and hearing them within two months.

Shamshad Begum Vs Bee Jon Bee — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 745 OF 2009

¶6

Between :

¶7

Shamshad Begum & others. ...PETITIONERS

¶8

A N D

¶9

Bee Jon Bee and others. …RESPONDENTS

¶10

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶11

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 745 OF 2009

¶12

O R D E R:

¶13

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 07.11.2008, in I.A. No.528 of 2008 in O.P.No. 557 of 2007, on the file of Judge Family Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the trial Court directed police to provide police assistance to the first respondent herein to implement the order dated 25.03.2008 passed in the O.P..

¶14

2. Heard both sides.

¶15

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are not the parties to O.P.No.557 of 2007, and therefore, such a direction ought not to have been given by the trial court.

¶16

4. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the impugned order is consequential order in pursuance of the decree in O.P.No.557 of 2007, dated 25.03.2008, on the file of Judge Family Court, Hyderabad and therefore the trial court rightly ordered for police

¶17

assistance. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

¶18

5. Powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India involves a duty on the High Court to keep its inferior Courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority, and to see that they do what their duty require and that they do it in a legal manner. It is a supervisory jurisdiction.

¶19

6. No doubt, the first respondent herein obtained decree in O.P.No.557 of 2007 on 25.03.2008 for custody of minor child Mohammed Owais. It seems, the boy was in the custody of the petitioners. The paramount consideration for appointing a guardian of a minor is the welfare of the child. But, admittedly, the present petitioners are not parties to O.P.No.557 of 2007. Therefore, having added the petitioners as parties to I.A.No.528 of 2008, the trial court ought to have issued notice to them before passing any order against them granting police assistance to implement the order dated 25.03.2008, since the petitioners are not parties to the O.P. filed for custody of the child, which was decreed. The said order ought not to have implemented against the present petitioners. Therefore, the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial court with a direction to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after issuing notice to all the parties and after hearing them, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶20

7. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed. No costs.

¶21

K.C.BHANU. J

¶22

APRIL 23, 2010. YVL

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶24

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 745 OF 2009

¶25

April 23, 2010

Shamshad Begum v. Bee Jon Bee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shamshad Begum v. Bee Jon Bee

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

St. Marys College of Engineering and Technology Vs Future Tech Instruments Pvt. Ltd.

Hussain Mohudduin , Mohd. Hussain Mohiuddin , Amar Vs The District Collector

Kasani Dhanalaxmi Vs The Union of India

Vegesinsa Anantha Lakshmi Vs Kanumuri Venkata Raju

Zaheeruddin Vs Mohd. Rafathullah

The A.P. State Cooperative bank Limited, Vs P.N. Vijayalakshmi Devi