Muhammed Iqbal vs Shejina.K.S.
2021 Latest Caselaw 4917 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

                                   &

                   THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

    WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 21ST MAGHA,1942

                         OP (FC).No.103 OF 2019

      AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.1501/2018 IN O.P.NO.769/2017
                        OF FAMILY COURT, TIRUR
                                ------


PETITIONER/S:

                MUHAMMED IQBAL, AGED 35 YEARS,
                S/O. PAREETH, THAYAMKULAM HOUSE,
                KOTHOLIKUNNU, KADAVALLUR (PO),
                THALAPPILLI TALUK.

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN
                SRI.SAIJO HASSAN
                SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN
                SMT.J.KASTHURI
                SRI.RAFEEK. V.K.
                SRI.U.M.HASSAN
                SMT.P.PARVATHY
                SMT.SURYA P SHAJI


RESPONDENT/S:

                SHEJINA.K.S., AGED 29 YEARS,
                D/O. SAIDU MUHAMED,
                KIZHAPADINHARUVALAPPIL HOUSE,
                OTHAYUR (PO), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.


THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-02-2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP (FC).No.103/2019          2




                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 10th day of February 2021

C.S.Dias, J.

This original petition was filed challenging Ext.P3

order passed by the Family Court, Tirur in

I.A.No.1501/2018 in O.P.No.769/2017.

2. The petitioner is principally aggrieved by

condition No.6 in the impugned order, directing the

petitioner to surrender the passport of the child, for

getting custody of the child for the period from

24.12.2018 to 28.12.2018. Admittedly, the period for

getting custody of the child is over more than two

years back.

3. Although this Court had issue notice on

admission to the respondent, no process was paid by

the petitioner.

4. In the aforementioned situation, we do not find

that anything further survives in the original petition.

Resultantly, the same is dismissed.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS

JUDGE

ln

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION AS GOP 769 OF 2017.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION AS I.A. 1501 OF 2018 IN O.P. NO. 769 OF 2017.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.12.2018 IN I.A.1501 OF 2018 IN O.P. 769 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, TIRUR.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE