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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 7587

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Devan Ramachandran, M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ
ANJALI.R. – Appellant
Versus
ARUN JYOTHI – Respondent
OP (FC) NO. 83 OF 2026 | OP(G&W) NO.1273 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.R.REJI

The court emphasized the necessity for timely disposal of cases in Family Courts to ensure justice.

Headnote:Statute Analysis: The court considered the applications moved in accordance with the declarations in Shiju Joy A. v. Nisha [2021 (2) KLT 607]. Facts of the Case: The petitioner seeks speedy disposal of OP(G&W) No. 1273/2025, alleging undue delay by the Family Court.

Findings of Court:
The court empathizes with the petitioner but notes the larger issue of pendency in Family Courts.

Issues: The court framed the issue of expediency in disposal of cases pending in Family Courts.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized timely justice and ordered that the applications must be considered without avoidable delay.

Result: The petition is allowed with a directive to the Family Court to act within three weeks.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks expedited proceedings (Para 1)
2. counsel argues for quick resolution (Para 2)
3. court recognizes systemic delays (Para 3)
4. court issues directive for timely action (Para 4)

Devan Ramachandran , J.

The petitioner seeks that OP(G&W) No.1273/2025, pending before the learned Family Court, Mavelikkara, be directed to be taken up and disposed of within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. Sri.R.Reji - appearing for the petitioner, submits that, though his client has moved the learned Family Court seeking expeditious disposal of the Original Petition through Interlocutory Applications, produced as Exts.P6 and P7; the Family Court has not taken adequate steps to expedite the proceedings.

3. We certainly have empathy for the petitioner; and ideally, all cases should be disposed of at the earliest. However, there is a large pendency in every Family Court and we cannot be oblivious to this.

4. That said, the applications moved by the petitioner before the learned Family Court - which, in our view, is in accordance with the declarations inShiju Joy A. v. Nisha[2021 (2) KLT 607] - requires to be disposed of without delay.

In the afore circumstances, we allow this Original Petition; with a direction to the learned Family Court, Mavelikkara, to consider Exts.P6 and P7 applications in its proper perspective, leading to appropriate orders/action on it, without any avoidable delay, but not later than three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- M.B. SNEHALATHA JUDGE stu APPENDIX OF OP (FC) NO. 83 OF 2026 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER IN FAVOUR OF HER FATHER DATED 10.07.2025 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OP.(GW) 1273 OF 2025 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT DATED 08.01.2022 EXECUTED AT THE MEDIATION SUB CENTRE, HARIPPAD IN M.R.NO.177/21 IN MC NO.88/18 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER RECORDING THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT PASSED BY JFCM-II HARIPPAD DATED 02.03.2022 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ADMISSION LETTER DATED

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 Back to top