Court emphasized the necessity of notice to parties for procedural fairness in family court proceedings.

Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order of the learned Family Court, Ernakulam, asserting that the same is illegal and unlawful.

2. Smt. Swetha P. Dileep – learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the impugned order is egregiously in error because, through it, the learned Family Court reviewed its own order, dated 08.02.2024 in I.A. No. 18 of 2024; and that this is without jurisdiction or authority. She prayed that the impugned order be, therefore, set aside.

3. Smt. Gisa Susan Thomas – learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that, as is evident from the impugned order itself, the learned Family Court had allowed I.A. No. 18 of 2024 filed by the petitioner herein, to substitute his power of attorney which he had earlier presented but without offering any opportunity to her client of hearing or of filing her objections. She submitted that, as has been correctly found by the learned Family Court, not even a notice was issued to her client on the application in question; and hence that the impugned order is irreproachable.

4. We have examined Ext.P4, to notice that the petitioner had earlier been allowed to prosecute G.O.P No.1085 of 2023 through a power of attorney given by him to his mother. He appears to have filed I.A. No. 18 of 2024, to substitute the said power of attorney with another, namely used to his cousin. This application was allowed by the learned Family Court through Ext.P4 order.

5. When we examine Ext.P4, the learned Family Court has recorded that I.A No.18 of 2024 was allowed by it without a copy of the same having been served on the respondent herein; and consequently without affording her an opportunity of being heard. The learned court has, therefore, held that this is an error on the face of the record; and that it is therefore, enjoined to review it, so that I.A. No. 18 of 2024 can be heard again.

6. We find full approval with the afore view.

7. Consequently, I.A. No. 18 of 2024 still is pending before the learned Family Court, and orders will be issued by the said Court on merits after hearing both sides. Of course, there is a finding in the impugned order to the effect that there is no material to find that the petitioner herein had cancelled the first power of attorney given to his mother. This can, at the best, be only a preliminary view, which shall not affect the final decision to be taken by the learned Family Court, when I.A. No. 18 of 2024 is finally decided.

In such perspective and with the afore clarification, we dismiss this Original Petition.

Sd/-