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

2012 Supreme(Ker) 985

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH
Pramod Vidyandhar Panicker – Appellant
Versus
Bindu Pramod Panicker – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Martin G. Thottan.
For the Respondent: K. Shaj.

JUDGMENT :

Pius C. Kuriakose, J.

1. This original petition under Article 227 is directed against Ext. P5 order passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam holding that Ext. P1 Original Petition (O.P. No. 1254/2012) on the files of that court filed by respondents 1 and 2 is maintainable in law before that court. Ext. P1 original petition was filed under Section 7 of the Guardian and Wards Act of 1890 read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act 1984 for a declaration that the 2nd respondent-grand mother of a minor child Jhanvi Pramod Panikkar, the daughter of the petitioner and the first respondent, is the Guardian of the person of the above said minor. According to Ext.P1, the first respondent, the mother of the child, is presently under treatment at Life Care Clinic at Palarivattom within the territorial limits of the Family Court, Ernakulam. She is being treated for Hypoxic ischemic brain injury sustained as a result of near hanging. As the first respondent is immobilised, bed ridden and not in a position to sign or verify the petition, she is represented by the 2nd respondent, her mother as next friend. It is alleged that the present state of the first respondent is the result of the at



















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