SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Harpreet Kaur Anand vs Harpreet Kaur Anand on 17 October, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 25TH ASWINA, 1940

Con.Case(C).No. 1980 of 2018

ARISING FROM THE JUDGMENT IN OP 941/2007 of FAMILY COURT,
ERNAKULAM DATED 31-10-2009

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

HARPREET KAUR ANAND,
AGED 44 YEARS,W/O MR MATHEW JOSEPH,
TEMPORARILY RESIDING AS PAYING GUEST,
C/O MR.T.S. MANUEL, THUNDIPARAMBIL HOUSE, SRM ROAD,
KALOOR, ERNAKULAM, KERALA 682 018.

BY HARPREET KAUR ANAND(PARTY IN PERSON)

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

MATHEW JOSEPH
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O RTD SQ. LDR. P.I. JOSEPH,
PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT DOOR NO.3B, IVORY HEIGHTS,
PARAMBITHARA CROSS ROAD, PANAMPALLY NAGAR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA – 682 036.

THIS CONTEMPT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Con.Case(C).No. 1980 of 2018

2

JUDGMENT

Hrishikesh Roy, C.J.

This Contempt Petition is based on the judgment dated 31.10.2009 rendered by

the Family Court, Ernakulam in the O.P.No.941 of 2007. That was in relation to the

petitioner’s child Eshan where the father filed application under Section 9 of the

Guardians and Wards Act VIII of 1890 read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984,

to seek custody of the minor child. The Family Court, after due consideration of the

materials on record, held that the father is not entitled to get permanent custody of the

minor child but he was allowed visitation rights as mentioned in the Annexure A

judgment.

2. The petitioner in person submits that the child was forcibly taken away from

her custody by the father in the year 2011 and therefore, this Contempt Case should be

entertained.

3. However, it is well settled that a person, when aggrieved by the violation of the

court’s orders, must approach the court within a year but in the instant case, 7 years

have gone by since the alleged cause of action arose, for the Contempt proceeding. In

such circumstances, we refrain from passing any order in this case and order for its

closure.

Sd/-

Hrishikesh Roy,
Chief Justice

Sd/-

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar,
Judge
vpv
Con.Case(C).No. 1980 of 2018

3

APPENDIX

PETITIONER’S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT COPY IN
O.P.941/2018,DATED 31ST OCT 2009 ISSUED BY
FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM.

ANNEXURE B A TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 25TH
SEPTEMBER 2018 BY FAMILY COURT ERNAKULAM
DISMISSING RESTORATION OF SECOND DIVORCE
PETITION ON GROUNDS OF FRAUD AND RES
JUDICATA, AND ILLEGAL MARRIAGE.

ANNEXURE C A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.182/2018
REGISTERED AGAINST CONDEMNER.

RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS: NIL

/true copy/

P.A. To Judge

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation