JUDGMENT

Dated this the 18^th day of August, 2025 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order of the learned Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor, wherein, though various grounds are rejected, the primary assertion is that the pendrive in question was accompanied by the statutory certificate though recorded to the contrary in the aforesaid order..

2. We called for a report from the learned Family Court which we have now received.

3. The report says that though the certificate had been made available along with a pendrive, it had not been specifically pointed out and hence that it was not noticed or adverted to.

4. It is obvious that the application will have to be reconsidered by the learned Family Court.

5. We are aware that this Court has not yet issued notice to respondents; but are of the opinion that it may not be necessary, in view of the limited relief that they propose; and also because we are acting upon the report of the learned Family Court, which prima facie, indicates that what is stated in the impugned order may not be accurate regarding the certificate.

6. In the above circumstances, we allow this original petition, and set aside Ext.P7; with a consequential d