THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Anish Antony Thimothy – Appellant
Versus
Neetha – Respondent
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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.