Kerala High Court
Dr. Munawar Dhanish Mohammed vs Dr. Sanila Rahim on 5 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 13TH ASWINA, 1943
OP (FC) NO. 451 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.8.21 & 31.8.21 IN OP 186/2021 OF
FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA
PETITIONER:
DR. MUNAWAR DHANISH MOHAMMED,
S/O.C.H.MOHAMMAD, CHEMNAD HOUSE, PARAVANADUKKAM,
KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671 317.
BY ADVS. ATUL SOHAN
K.V.SOHAN
SREEJA SOHAN K.
RESPONDENT:
DR. SANILA RAHIM,
D/O.K.H.RAHIM, SANILA MANZIL, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 673.
BY ADVS. H.SUBHALEKSHMI
BABY NANDHINI
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
O.P.(FC).No.451/2021
-:2:-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 5th day of October, 2021
A.Muhamed Mustaque,J.
This original petition was filed challenging orders of the
Family Court, Muvattupuzha in OP No.186/2021. The dispute is in regard
to the custody of the child. The Family Court passed Exts.P6 to P8 orders
allowing contact rights to the respondent. This order is questioned in this
case by the father of the child stating that the child is ordinarily residing
within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Kasaragod and the Family
Court, Muvattupuzha has no jurisdiction to entertain the case. The learned
counsel particularly referred to Ext. P4 objection raised before the Family
Court. It is submitted that the Family Court, Muvattupuzha could not have
passed the impugned orders without deciding the question on jurisdiction.
2. Heard the counsel for the respondent as well as.
3. The orders now passed would depend upon the court's
O.P.(FC).No.451/2021
jurisdiction to entertain said case. The court has to decide the preliminary
question regarding jurisdiction when there is an objection raised by way of
Ext.P4. It is appropriate that the Family Court decides the question of
territorial jurisdiction at the earliest, at any rate, within four weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Therefore, we are of the view
that the impugned orders have to be set aside. We do so. Any further
directions could be given only after a decision is taken in regard to the
territorial jurisdiction.
In the meanwhile, we allow the mother to contact the child on every
Monday, Wednesday and Saturday between 7 to 7.30 pm through
WhatsApp video call.
The original petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
kp True copy
P.A. To Judge
O.P.(FC).No.451/2021
APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 451/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION
BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA IS
PRODUCED AND MARKED AS EXT.P1.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERLOCUTORY
APPLICATION NO.2/2021 BEFORE THE FAMILY
COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA IS PRODUCED AND
MARKED AS EXT.P2.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO
INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.2/2021
BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA
SIGNED BY THE ADVOCATE DATED 08.07.2021
IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS EXT.P3.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE IA 5/2021 IN OP
186/2021 DATED 31.07.2021 FILED ON
05.08.2021 IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS
EXT.P4.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE IA 6/2021 DATED
16.08.2021 FILED ON 16.08.2021 IS
PRODUCED AND MARKED AS EXT.P5.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 6/2021 IN
OP 186/2021 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT,
MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 16.08.2021 IS
PRODUCED AND MARKED AS EXT.P6.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION TO REVIEW
AND RECALL EXT.P6 ORDER DATED 31.08.2021
IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS EXT.P7.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.08.2021
IN IA 6/2021 IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS
EXT.P8.
O.P.(FC).No.451/2021
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL NOTICE DATED
01.09.2021 IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS
EXT.P9.
