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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 55714

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ
S.SENTHILKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
DIVYA SASIDHARAN – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.HARISH R. MENON, SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR, SMT.K.N.ABHA, SRI.A.G.PRASANTH

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order of the learned Family Court, Palakkad, which is, however, modified by Ext.P4 judgment of this Court.

2. Sri.Harish R.Menon – learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that his client only seeks that the time frame fixed in Ext.P3 be enhanced; but conceded that, while Ext.P4 was delivered, he had not sought for this and hence that this Court did not consider it.

3. It is thus obvious that, instead of challenge to Ext.P3, what the petitioner should be attempting is a review of Ext.P4 judgment of this Court.

4. Sri.Harish R.Menon, at this time, intervened to say that his client will withdraw this Original Petition and file a review against Ext.P4 judgment.

In the afore circumstances, permitting the above request, this Original Petition is dismissed as having been withdrawn.

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