Reneesha P.V vs Shamsudeen Raja Abdul Khader
2021 Latest Caselaw 17207 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
                               &
         THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
 FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1943
                    OP (FC) NO. 389 OF 2021
 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13-04-2021 IN I.A. NO.1/2020 IN
             OP 681/2020 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

            RENEESHA P.V.
            AGED 32 YEARS
            D/O ABDUL RASHEED, DARUL SALAM, VIJAYAPURAM
            COLONY, KALLIKKAD (TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION
            LIMIT) PALAKKAD-768 006.
            BY ADV M.P.SUNITHA BEEGUM


RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1       SHAMSUDEEN RAJA ABDUL KHADER
            S/O ABDUL KHADER 4A, 4TH FLOOR, BEHIND INDIAN
            BANK COMPLEX, SAI NAGAR, PODANUR MAIN ROAD,
            R.V.ABODE FAIRY LAND APARTMENTS COIMBATORE-641
            023.
    2       ABDUL KHADER,
            AGED 70 YEARS, 4A, 4TH FLOOR, BEHIND INDIAN BANK
            COMPLEX SAI NAGAR, PODANNUR MAIN ROAD, R.V ABODE
            FAIRY LAND APARTMENTS COIMBATROE-641 023.
    3       SHAMEENA,
            AGED 69 YEARS, W/O ABDUL KHADER 4A, 4TH FLOOR,
            BEHIND INDIAN BANK COMPLEX SAI NAGAR, PODANUR
            MAIN ROAD. R V ABODE FAIRLY LAND APARTMENTS
            COIMBATORE-641 023.

        THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 OP (FC) NO. 389 OF 2021
                               ..2..



                         JUDGMENT

A.Muhamed Mustaque,J.

This original petition was filed challenging

an order of the Family Court declining visitation

or interaction right to the petitioner who is the

mother of the child namely Armaan Marzuq born in

the wedlock with the 1st respondent. There is a

serious issue regarding the territorial

jurisdiction of the Family Court, Palakkad. That

has been adverted in the previous proceedings

before this Court between the same parties in the

W.P.(Criminal) No.233 of 2020. However, the

Family Court kept aside that issue and passed an

order in application filed by the petitioner for

interaction and contact rights.

2. The Family Court cannot assume a

jurisdiction unless it holds that it has

jurisdiction after adverting to the objection

raised by the respondent. As seen from impugned

order itself, the respondent has raised serious OP (FC) NO. 389 OF 2021 ..3..

question regarding territorial jurisdiction of

the Family Court. Therefore, it is appropriate

for the Family Court to pass orders on any

application for interim orders after deciding on

the preliminary question on territorial

jurisdiction. With the liberty to the Family

court to consider the matter afresh, after

adverting to the point on territorial

jurisdiction, the impugned order is set aside.

The Family Court, before proceeding further,

shall decide on territorial jurisdiction.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE SSK/13/08 OP (FC) NO. 389 OF 2021 ..4..

APPENDIX

PETITIONER ANNEXURE Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF THE MINOR CHILD NAMED ARMAAN MARZUQ Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.3.2021 IN OP(FC) NO 205/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.4.2021 IN IA 1/2020 IN OP 681/2020 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD Exhibit P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 5/11/2020 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DIG OF POLICE, THRISSUR RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL

SSK //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE