Adharsh vs Divya A.S
2024 Latest Caselaw 22955 Ker

Kerala High Court

Adharsh vs Divya A.S on 31 July, 2024

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                      PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

                                         &

             THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA

     WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JULY 2024 / 9TH SRAVANA, 1946

                            OP (FC) NO. 489 OF 2024

     AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED IN OP NO.665 OF 2024 OF FAMILY

COURT, ATTINGAL

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

            ADHARSH
            AGED 35 YEARS
            S/O VISHNU,ARIYA BHAVAN,PALLIPPADI,KARAKKADU.P.O
            CHENGANNOOR,MULAKUZHA VILLAGE,ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY
            HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER VISHNU V , AGED 70
            YEARS,S/O K.K VELAYUDHAN, ARIYA
            BHAVAN,PALLIPPADI,KARAKKADU.P.O CHENGANNOOR,MULAKUZHA
            VILLAGE,ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 689504


            BY ADVS.
            MANSOOR.B.H.
            SAKEENA BEEGUM




RESPONDENT/:

            DIVYA A.S
            AGED 23 YEARS
            D/O SINI,DIVYA NIVAS,VARKALA,MOONGODU, OTTOOR
            VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695144



     THIS   OP    (FAMILY    COURT)    HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
31.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                              2024:KER:60908
OP (FC) NO. 489 OF 2024

                                       2


                                JUDGMENT

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN,J.

The petitioner seeks a direction to the

learned Family Court, Attingal, to permit him to

participate in the statutory counseling, in

O.P.No.665/2024, through online platform/mode.

2. We have heard Smt.Sakeena Beegum -

learned counsel for the petitioner; but we must

record that we are unable to fathom the reason

for the petitioner in having approached this

Court directly.

3. This is because, we fail to

understand why the petitioner could not have

moved the learned Family Court itself for

permission to participate in counseling through

online mode; and had it been rejected without

cogent reason, then perhaps, he could have

approached this Court in the present manner.

4. When conceded before us by

Smt.Sakeena Beegum, without any reservation, that 2024:KER:60908 OP (FC) NO. 489 OF 2024

her client has not requested the learned Family

Court for an option to participate in the

counseling through online mode, we find no reason

to interfere in any manner at this stage.

5. However, this is without prejudice

to the liberty of the petitioner to approach the

learned Family Court appropriately for any

relief, including for the one that has been

sought for in this Original Petition.

With the afore clarification, this

Original Petition is closed.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

Sd/-

M.B. SNEHALATHA JUDGE SAS 2024:KER:60908 OP (FC) NO. 489 OF 2024

APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 489/2024

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.P NO:665/2024 PENDING BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT DATED 9/5/2024 IN O.P 105/2023 OF FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 6/7/2024 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER