Muhammed Rashid vs Fathima
2021 Latest Caselaw 7928 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 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                         OP (FC).No.376 OF 2020

     AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.1017/2019 IN O.P.NO.556/2017
                      OF FAMILY COURT, TIRUR
                                -------


PETITIONER/S:

      1         MUHAMMED RASHID, AGED 31 YEARS,
                S/O.MUHAMMED, MANNUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
                KODAKKAL (P.O), THIRUNNAVAYA AMSOM,
                TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676108.

      2         MUHAMMED, AGED 57 YEARS,
                S/O.SAIDALAVI HAJI, MANNUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
                KODAKKAL (P.O), THIRUNNAVAYA AMSOM,
                TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676108.

      3         AMINA, AGED 51 YEARS, W/O.MUHAMMED, MANNUPARAMBIL
                HOUSE, KODAKKAL (P.O), THIRUNNAVAYA AMSOM, TIRUR
                TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676108.

                BY ADV. SRI.N.MUHAMMAD SAJU

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         FATHIMA, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.HAMSA HAJI,
                KAVUMPURATH HOUSE, KURUKA (P.O),
                KALPAKANJERI AMSOM, TIRUR TALUK,
                MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676551.

      2         AYSHA DIYANA, AGED 2 YEARS,
                (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY FIRST PETITIONER,
                FATHIMA (MOTHER).

                R1 BY ADV. SRI.H.BADARUDDIN
                R1-2 BY ADV. SRI. AJMAL V. A.

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-03-2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP (FC).No.376/2020             2

                             JUDGMENT

Dated this the 8th day of March 2021 A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

The petitioners approached this Court challenging the

order passed in an application to amend the petition. The

respondents herein filed O.P.No.556/2017 before the Family

Court, Tirur for return of gold ornaments. Thereafter, the

amendment petition was filed. That amendment petition has

been allowed. According to the petitioners, this amendment petition was allowed after closing the evidence and that

prejudiced the petitioners.

We will not be justified in interfering with this

order invoking the power under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India. If the petitioners have been

prejudiced by such an order and the petitioners are finally

aggrieved by the outcome of the proceedings, they can very

well challenge the same along with the final order to be

passed. Without prejudice to the above recourse, we dismiss

this original petition.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

JUDGE

Sd/-

KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

JUDGE

ln

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.556/2017 DATED 30.08.2017 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, TIRUR.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO.1017/2019 DATED 15.06.2019 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, TIRUR.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN I.A.NO.1017/2019 IN O.P.NO.556/2017 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, TIRUR.

EXHIBIT P4 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.07.2020 IN I.A.NO.1017/2019 IN O.P.NO.556/2017 IN FAMILY COURT, TIRUR.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE DIARY EXTRACT OF O.P.NO.556/2017 IN FAMILY COURT, TIRUR. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE