Family courts must consider all objections before dismissing interim applications; such dismissals should not impede statutory schemes.

JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The respondent filed O.P.(G&W)No.42/2016 before the learned Family Court, Malappuram, seeking custody of his child from the petitioner, but it was dismissed through Ext.P1 judgment dated 31.05.2017.

2. Smt.Sayujya Radhakrishnan – learned counsel for the petitioner, explained that, however, subsequently, several years later, the respondent filed I.A.No.2/2024 - namely Ext.P2, seeking that the judgment be reviewed; to which, her client filed Ext.P3 objections, impelling a contention that it is not maintainable nor tenable. She submitted that, however, since the learned Family Court did not consider such objections, her client was compelled to file I.A.No.1/2025, contending that Ext.P2 is not maintainable; but that the same has been now dismissed through Ext.P8 order, thus constraining her to approach this Court through this Original Petition.

3. We are rather amazed by the turn of events in this case because, Ext.P2 – I.A.No.2/2024 has been admittedly filed by the respondent seeking a review of the judgment of the learned Family Court, namely Ext.P1. The petitioner has filed Ext.P3 objections against it, raising the contention that such an application is not maintainable. However, instead of the said objections being considered and the interim application in question being disposed of, the learned Family Court has now issued Ext.P8, apparently because the petitioner then filed I.A.No.1/2025 raising the question of maintainability of I.A.No.2/2024 as a collateral proceeding. In our firm view, the learned Family Court ought to have considered Ext.P2 on its merits, adverting to Ext.P3 objections and all other germane and relevant inputs.

4. We are fully aware that we are considering this matter before admission and that we have not issued notice to the respondent. However, since Ext.P8 merely says that I.A.No.2/2024 is maintainable, we do not think that it is necessary for us to await the respondent because, we cannot find the proceedings of the learned Family Court to be subscribing to the Statutory Scheme.

5. As we have said above, the proper course of the learned Family Court was to have considered I.A.No.2/2024, adverting to Ext.P3 objections. It was unnecessary for the petitioner to have filed I.A.No.1/2025, or for the learned Family Court to have decided it in any manner.

6. We are, therefore, of the firm opinion that the learned Family Court should be directed to consider Ext.P2 application, adverting to Ext.P3 objections, after affording necessary opportunities to both sides without any avoidable delay, dehors its conclusions in Ext.P8, which we declare to be no more than preliminary in nature.

In the afore circumstances, we allow this Original Petition, clarifying that Ext.P8 cannot fetter the learned Family Court nor influenced by the holdings therein; consequentially directing it to take up Ext.P2 application and dispose it of, after affording necessary opportunities to both sides and adverting to Ext.P3 objections, without any avoidable delay.

Sd/-