Shani vs Udheen
2023 Latest Caselaw 8915 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
                              &
          THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
 MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1945
                   OP (FC) NO. 492 OF 2023
 AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.2/2023 IN O.P.(FC)NO.196/2023
                OF FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA
                         -----------
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN O.P.:

          SHANI, AGED 41 YEARS,
          D/O. ABDUL GAFOOR, MAANGAMPARAMBIL HOUSE,
          METHALA VILLAGE, METHALA P.O.,
          KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
          PIN - 680669.
          BY ADVS.
          M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN
          K.S.RAJESH


RESPONDENTS:

    1     UDHEEN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.SAIDU MUHAMMED,
          THEPPARAMBIL HOUSE, VEMBALLUR DESOM,
          S.N.PURAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK,
          THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680671.
    2     SECRETARY, PUTHENPALLI JUMA MASJID, AZHIKODE,
          THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680666.




THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
14.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 O.P.(FC) No.492/2023                        2




                                  JUDGMENT

A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.

This original petition was filed by the wife

aggrieved by an order of interim injunction granted in

favour of the respondent. The petitioner was the wife.

She invoked extra-judicial divorce (Khula) and terminated

the marriage. Thereafter, the husband filed a petition

for restitution of conjugal rights. In that O.P., he

filed an application to restrain the wife from

contracting another marriage. It is doubtful as per the

personal law applicable the petition for restitution of

conjugal rights is maintainable. It is to be noted that

there should be a challenge to Khula in a proper manner.

We are of the view that the Family Court granted the

interim injunction without applying mind. Thereafter, a

petition was filed for an early hearing. That was

dismissed. It is to be noted that in the petition for

the early hearing itself, the petitioner has submitted

that she has invoked Khula and thereafter, the injunction

should have been vacated. Without adverting to these

facts, the Family Court dismissed the early hearing

petition. We are of the view that the Family Court

failed to exercise its jurisdiction in advancing the

case, and the order of interim injunction was passed

without applying mind. Accordingly, we set aside Ext.P6

order.

The original petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE

Sd/-

SOPHY THOMAS JUDGE ln

APPENDIX OF O.P.(FC) 492/2023

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF O.P.196/2023 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DT. 02.02.2023.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE O.P 1038/2019FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DT.16.11.2019. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.357/2019 REGISTERED BY MATHILAKAM POLICE STATION DT. 07.06.2019.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF NOTICE OF DIVORCE DT.

17.01.2023.

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IA 2/2023 IN O.P 196/2023 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HONORABLE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DT.02.02.2023.

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 2/2023 IN O.P 196/2022 PASSED BY THE HONORABLE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DT.06.02.2023. EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE IA 3/2023 IN O.P 196/2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HONORABLE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DT.05.06.2023.

EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 3/2023 IN O.P 196/2023 PASSED BY THE HONORABLE FAMILY COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DT.12.06.2023. EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OPFC 394/2022 PASSED BY HIGH COURT OF KERALA DT.17.08.2022.