Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ
... – Appellant
Versus
... – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges family court's dismissal concerning privacy. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court examines evidence sensitivity and privacy rights. (Para 4 , 5 , 7) |
| 3. court affirms the petitioner's justification for privacy. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. court allows trial 'in camera' and mandates proceedings. (Para 11 , 12) |
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The petitioner challenges Exts. P8 and P10 orders of the learned Family Court, Neyyattinkara, because, through the first, the learned court had dismissed IA.No.6 of 2025 - wherein, she requested that the trial in OP.No.504 of 2023 be held “in camera”; while, through the second, the learned court has refused to review its earlier order.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner-
Smt. Sanu S. Malakkel, submitted that, as has been stated by her client in Ext. P7 application, the disputes between the parties are sensitive in nature and could have the effect of affecting their privacy. She explained that, her client has produced certain videographs indicating compromising situations between the 1st respondent herein and another lady; and further that, since she herself is working in a Nationalized Bank, it is necessary that her privacy be fully prot
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
