Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Devan Ramachandran, M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ
VIMAL V.T – Appellant
Versus
DEEPA M.S – Respondent
OP (FC) NO. 123 OF 2026 | OPDIV NO.113 OF 2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction is essential for maintainability of the original petition. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner is permitted to refile with the required documentation. (Para 2) |
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The petitioner challenges the endorsement on Ext.P3 made by the learned Judge of the learned Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor, to the effect that the Original Petition presented by him, cannot be maintained before it for lack of territorial jurisdiction.
2. We cannot entertain this Original Petition without the order being produced; and, what we see is that the application has been given back to the petitioner by the learned Family Court, who has then taken a copy of the order written behind it and produced before us.
In the afore circumstances, we dismiss this Original Petition; however, leaving full liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh one, with a copy of the order annexed as per law.
Sd/-
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
