Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Devan Ramachandran, M.B. Snehalatha, JJ
EBY CHERIAN – Appellant
Versus
JEREMA JOHN – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. review of court order presented by a petitioner must afford the respondent an opportunity to be heard. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's examination of procedural correctness revealed flaws in the family court's order. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. original petition dismissed with directions for fairness in reconsideration of pending matters. (Para 7) |
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 f
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
