P.Vijayalekshmiamma vs Renju.R
2021 Latest Caselaw 7071 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

                                   &

         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

     MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                         OP (FC).No.167 OF 2020

AGAINST THE ORDER IN C.A.231/2020 IN OP 524/2019 DATED 04-02-2020
                   OF FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA


PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

             P.VIJAYALEKSHMIAMMA
             AGED 72 YEARS
             W/O. MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR, VIJAYA BHAVAN, THURAVOOR
             P.O. KUTHIYATHODU VILLAGE, KUTHIYATHODU PANCHAYAT,
             PADINJATTINKARA NORTH MURI, CHERTHALA TALUK 688 532.

             BY ADV. SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA)

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

             RENJU.R, AGED 37 YEARS
             D/O. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, SANJU BHAVAN, PALLIMUKKU,
             CHINGELI MURI, KADACKAL VILAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK,
             KADACKAL P.O. KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 536, REPRESENTED BY
             HER GUARDIAN AND MOTHER THE NEXT FRIEND RADHAMMA,
             W/O. RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, SANJU BHAVAN, PALLIMUKKU
             CHINGELI MURI, KADACKAL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK,
             KADACKAL P.O. KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 536.


     THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON    01-03-
2021 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 O.P.(FC).No.167/2020
                                         2




                                     JUDGMENT

Dated this the 1st day of March 2021

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J

This original petition was filed on 18.3.2019 by the

petitioner in O.P.No.524/2019 on the files of the Family

Court, Alappuzha. When this matter came up before this

Court, there was no representation and the matter was

adjourned with the endorsement "post when moved again".

2. This original petition was filed challenging the

order passed in C.A.No.231/2020 in O.P.No.524/2019,

rejecting the request for getting copies of the call list

forwarded by the service providers of a mobile company.

The court allowed the petitioner's counsel to verify the

documents in the presence of the Bench Clerk without

affecting his duties. But, the court refused to give a

copy, stating that this will affect privacy.

3. We are of the view that if the petitioner is

aggrieved by the impugned order, she can very well

challenge the same at the time of the final judgment. O.P.(FC).No.167/2020

Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the

order passed by the Family Court.

This original petition is dismissed.

Sd/

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

sd/-

True copy KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE P.A. To Judge kp O.P.(FC).No.167/2020

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED AS O.P. NO.

524/2019 DTD. 18.6.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF COURT CERTIFICATE DTD.

3.9.2019 ISSUED FROM FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA TO BHARATHI AIRTEL LTD.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF COVERING LETTER 1.10.2019 ISSUED BY NODAL OFFICER IDEA LTD.

EXHIBIT P4 THE DECODED TOWER LOCATION OF THE CELL IDS DTD. 1.10.2019 PROVIDED BY VODAFONE IDEA LTD.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO. 1768/2019 DTD.

12.11.2019 IN O.P. NO. 524/2019.

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER PASSED IN C.A. NO.

231/2020 IN O.P. NO. 524/2019 OF FAMILY COURT , ALAPPUZHA.