Mijas K. Mohammed vs Dr. Fathima
2024 Latest Caselaw 31349 Ker

Kerala High Court

Mijas K. Mohammed vs Dr. Fathima on 2 November, 2024

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

                                                      2024:KER:81638

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

                                 &

         THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA

 SATURDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1946

                     RP NO. 1139 OF 2024

       AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP (FC) NO.353 OF 2024 OF HIGH

                         COURT OF KERALA

REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

          MIJAS K. MOHAMMED
          AGED 35 YEARS
          S/O. K.S.MOHAMMED KOTTAPURATH HOUSE MOOLEPADAM
          NAGAR, KALAMSSERY P.O. ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683104.


          BY ADVS.
          C.HARIKUMAR
          SANDRA SUNNY
          ARUN KUMAR M.A
          FARAH JYOTHI PRADEEP




RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

          DR. FATHIMA
          AGED 33 YEARS
          D/O. JAMALUDHEEN SAHIB PANDAPLAVIL HOUSE, VRINDAVAN
          NAGAR KADAPAKAD KOLLAM, PIN - 691008

          BY ADV
           SRI FARHEEM AHSAN S.
 RP No.1139 of 2024
                                   2
                                                        2024:KER:81638



      THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.11.2024,   THE    COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 RP No.1139 of 2024
                                     3
                                                           2024:KER:81638



                                 ORDER

Devan Ramachandran, J.

This petition, seeks review of the judgment

of this Court solely to the extent that the

exchange of a child shall be at a place which is

other than the residence of the respondent - wife.

2. Sri. C. Harikumar, learned counsel for the

petitioner - husband, submitted that his client has

been constrained to make this prayer because, in an

earlier instance, when he went to the residence of

his wife, he was beaten up, and a crime registered.

He added that, therefore, his client fears to go

near the residence of the respondent wife.

3. Sri. Faheem Ahsan S., learned counsel for

the respondent - wife, however, submitted that the

afore apprehension is only a ruse to misdirect

Judicial processes because, his client has not and

will not in any manner obstruct or attack the

2024:KER:81638

petitioner when he goes to take the child from his

client's residence. He added that, however, as a

matter of caution, it may be clarified that the

exchange shall take place at the front gate of the

residence of his client, which is a public place.

He then added that afore stated apprehension is not

correct, for another reason, namely that the

alleged earlier attack was not at his client's

instance and not infront of her residence either.

4. Sri. C. Harikumar, learned counsel for the

petitioner, agreed to the afore suggestion.

In the afore circumstances, we allow this

Review Petition, clarifying that the exchange of

the child shall be outside the front gate of the

residence of the petitioner-wife. Since an

apprehension as afore has been raised, and because

the child has to be now taken by the father on the

next Saturday, namely 09.11.2024, we order that

even though this Review Petition will stand

2024:KER:81638

disposed of in terms of the afore directions, a

report be given to us on 12.11.2024.

Post for report 12.11.2024.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

Sd/-

M.B.SNEHALATHA

JUDGE HKH/02.11.2024