Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Devan Ramachandran, M.B. Snehalatha, JJ
Jilna – Appellant
Versus
Dixon V.V. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges family court's refusal of custody application. (Para 1) |
| 2. court directed counseling and interim custody arrangement. (Para 2) |
| 3. family court failed to assess merits of interim application. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 4. court mandated timely consideration of custody applications. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.
The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order of the learned Family Court, Irinjalakkuda, which refused to consider her application for interim custody of her child, on the ground that GOP No.1271/2025 is likely to be disposed of within four months. 2. Hearing Smt.Kavery S. Thampi – learned counsel for the petitioner on the afore lines on 04.12.2025, we issued notice to the respondent and Smt.Sikha G. Nair entered appearance on his behalf on 08.12.2025.
3. The parties subsequently appeared before us personally on 11.12.2025 along with the child; and we interacted with them. The impressions we gathered through such is available in the order of the said day reproduced below:
Parties were before us along with the child. We interacted with them in detail. We propose not to record our opinion gathered through such because both sides sought that they be
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
