SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Ker) 518

THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Anish Antony Thimothy – Appellant
Versus
Neetha – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Sooraj T.Elenjickal, Advocate.
For the Respondents: No Appearance.

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioners are the respondents in M.C.No.3 of 2010 of the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam (for short, " the ACJM") filed by first respondent under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short, "the Act"). First respondent has also filed O.P.No.2188 of 2010 in the Family Court, Thrissur seeking divorce and return of gold ornaments and other reliefs. Petitioners pray that M.C.No.3 of 2010 pending before the learned ACJM may be transferred to the Family Court, Thrissur. According to the petitioners they are staying at Mumbai and in connection with M.C.No.3 of 2010 they are required to come down to Ernakulam every now and then which caused much inconvenience to them. It is also submitted that first petitioner has lost his job. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also.

2. According to the learned counsel, by virtue of Section 26 of the Act Family Court is also given the power to grant reliefs under Sections 18,19, 20,21 and 22 of the Act. Learned counsel has also invited my attention to Section 7(2) of the Family Courts Act to contend that Family Courts also can exercise jurisdiction exerc




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top