AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 233 wordsDevan Ramachandran, J
Shorn of all unnecessary details, the petitioner only wants O.P.No.2494/2018 pending before the Family Court, Ernakulam be taken up and disposed of without any unavoidable delay.
However, the learned Division Bench of this Court has already delivered judgment in Shiju Joy v. Nisha [2021 (2) KLT 607] that the petitioner must move the Family Court at the first instance for this purpose; and we see from the file, - as is also argued by Sri.Prajeesh, learned counsel for the petitioner - that Ext.P2 application for the afore purpose has been moved.
We are, therefore, of the firm view that the Family Court must take up Ext.P2 and take a decision thereon, without any further delay.
Resultantly, we allow this Original Petition to the limited extent of directing the Family Court, Ernakulam, to take up Ext.P2 application and issue appropriate orders thereon, keeping in mind the declarations of this Court in Shiju Joy (supra).
This shall be done after hearing both sides, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Needless to say, even though we have only directed Ext.P2 to be taken up and orders issued on it, it goes without saying that the said Court will endeavour to dispose of the Original Petition itself in terms of the afore judgment.