The High Court disposed of a Family Court appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act alongside pending applications for additional evidence, noting that the children involved would have attained majority.
The appeal was disposed of. Pending applications for additional evidence were kept in the file.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY
F.C.A. NO: 6 OF 2006
Appeal Under Section 19 of Family Courts Act, 1984 against the Judgment and Decree dated 31-10-2005 in O.P. No. 35 of 2005 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Hyderabad.
Between:
Mohd Ghiasuddin, S/o.Mohd Zainulabuddin, aged: 45years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.20-5-5171A1112, Shakkar Gung, Hydrabad - 500 002.
...APPELLANT/ Petitioner
AND
Nikhath Fatima, W/o.lt/ohd. Ghiasuddin, aged 43years, Occ: Household, R/o. H. No. 1 6-2 -8351 1 5l I F I 1, Saidabad, Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENT/ Respondent
FCAMP. NO: 15 OF 2006
Petition under Order 41 R.27 R/w. Section 15'1 of CPCpraying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, theHigh Court may be pleased receive the documents enclosed with thispetition by way of Additional Evidence in the interest ofjustice.
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI SHARAD SANGHI
Counsel forthe Respondent: SRI D. MADHAVA RAO
The Court delivered the following: Judgment
Iterr No.56
THE, rION'BI,E'I'IIE CI{IEF.IUS'I'ICII I{IMA KOHLI
ANI)
1'ilE ltoN,t][.n sR.t ,l Is't'r('[] I]. /l,lAYSl,lN RI!t DY
F.(l.A,No.6 of 2006
.IUDGMEN'I: (Pcr tlre [lon'ble thc Chir.,l .lrrsricc Ilirrra I(otrti)
I . Le arnecl coLltisL.l lbr rhc lppclliillt stittcs that thc prcsent appcal has been relldercd inll'ucluous inasr.Lrclr lrs thc chilcllc, or'Lhc partics would ltave attained majorit) b.v- nou, ancl therc.lirr.e, no reliel. fbr claiming guardianship oi'the clrildr.cn is lvaillblc ro rhe appellanr i.rs on date.
).. 'l'he present appeal is zrccor.dingh, clisposed ol alone u,ith thc
pending applications, ii' ant,.
SD/-K,SRINIVASA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR
,TRUE COPY//
To
SECTION OFFICER
gbr
HIGH COURT
DATED:0310312021
(
1 t{ e S 74
oo 2 2 t'lAR 2021 C)
* *
P
JUDGMENT
FCA.No.6 of 2006
DISPOSING OF THE F.C.A.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal regarding guardianship should be disposed of on the grounds that the children would have attained majority.
Whether additional evidence should be accepted in the related pending applications.
Mohd Ghiasuddin
Nikhath Fatima
Hima Kohli
B.Vijaysen Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
