Dr. Sheena P vs K.B. Pran
2022 Latest Caselaw 5434 Ker

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
                                  &
        THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
  FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1944
                    OP (FC) NO. 269 OF 2022
   AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 747/2018 OF FAMILY
                            COURT, TIRUR
PETITIONER:

         DR. SHEENA P, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O KUMARAN,
         KARTHIKA, PACHEERI HOUSE, HIGH SCHOOL ROAD,
         VALANCHERY, VALANCHERY (PO), KATTIPPARUTHI
         VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676 552

         BY ADV N.J.ASHWIN



RESPONDENT:

         K.B. PRAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O BALAKRISHNAN,
         KOTTARAPPATT HOUSE, AKKIKKAVU AMSOM, AKKIKKAVU
         (PO) AKATHIYUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN
         - 680 519

         BY ADV R.UMASANKAR




     THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
20.05.2022,   THE   COURT    ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 OP (FC) NO. 269 OF 2022

                          ..2..




                J U D G M E N T

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J

This original petition was filed challenging an order to change the venue fixed to visit the child.

There has been an agreement between the parties in

regard to the visitation right given to the

respondent-father. There arose a dispute regarding

the venue. Thereupon, the respondent-father filed a

petition before the Family Court, Tirur. The Family

Court, Tirur, on noting the concession given by the

counsel for the petitioner-mother, changed the venue

to the premises of the Family Court, Tirur. This

order is under challenge.

According to the petitioner-mother, she neither

agreed nor authorised any counsel to change the venue

fixed for handing over the child and therefore, the

order is patently illegal. We are, invoking Article

227 of the constitution of India, not in a position

to consider the above plea. The petitioner-mother OP (FC) NO. 269 OF 2022

..3..

can very well move the Family Court seeking review of

the the order. With the liberty as above, this

original petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

Sd/-

SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE PR OP (FC) NO. 269 OF 2022

..4..

APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 269/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT STATEMENT FILED BY BOTH THE PARTIES IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT-P1

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT IN OP 747/2018 TIRUR

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 2/2022 IN OP 747/2018

Exhibit4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN IA 6/2022 IN OP 747/2018

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 6/2022 IN OP 747/2018