Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Devan Ramachandran, M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ
MOHAMMAD RASHID M.P., AMINA K.P. – Appellant
Versus
FATHIMA K. – Respondent
CON.CASE(C) NO. 1055 OF 2025 | Mat.Appeal NO.873 OF 2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegation of non-compliance regarding child custody. (Para 1) |
| 2. court finds no contempt grounds linking to compliance. (Para 2) |
| 3. contempt case closed with emphasis on other legal remedies. (Para 3) |
Devan Ramachandran , J.
The allegation of the petitioners in this case is that the respondent – mother has not taken the child with her, though undertaken before this Court.
2. We cannot understand how the afore becomes a ground for initiating contempt action, particularly when the petitioners do not whisperingly say that any of the other directions in the judgment have not been complied with.
3. Obviously, the attempt of the petitioners is experimental.
This contempt case is, therefore, closed; however, clarifying that every other remedy available to the parties in law is not precluded.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN Sd/- M.B. SNEHALATHA stu APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) NO. 1055 OF 2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES
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
