Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ
MUHAMMED IQBAL – Appellant
Versus
LUBNA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges a family court order. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments presented from both petitioner and respondents. (Para 2) |
| 3. court's need for proper evidence and trials. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. ultimate decision to allow the petition. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order of the learned Family Court, Ernakulam, because it has refused to confirm the conditional attachment on the properties of the respondents, earlier ordered under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
2. Sri.Shaju Purushothaman – appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Family Court has unfortunately prejudged every issue in the Suit, to virtually find that it cannot be decreed; and has thus issued the impugned order. He pointed out that the learned Court has held that the claim of his client is untenable and that he is not entitled to any amount as claimed for; and that this limpidly suggests a total deviation from the established legal processes. He reiteratingly prayed that this Original Petition be, therefore, allowed. 3. Sri.M.S.Unnikrishnan – appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the learned Family Court has
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
