Kerala High Court
Sulaiman vs Mubeena on 18 March, 2015
Bench: C.K.Abdul Rehim, K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2015/13TH JYAISHTA, 1937
Mat.Appeal.No. 371 of 2015 ()
------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP 238/2015 of FAMILY COURT, ATTINGAL
DATED 18-03-2015
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
---------------------
SULAIMAN, AGED 32 YEARS,
S/O. KAMARUDHEEN,
RESIDING AT PARATHIVADAKKATHIL VEEDU,
PARUTHIYIL KURIYODU, CHADAYAMANGALAM,
NOW EMPLOYED AT KINGDOM OF BAHARAIN
REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ABDUL RAHIM
S/O. KASIM KUNJU, KODIPACHIYIL VEEDU, KAITHODU PO,
KOLLAM DISTRICT
BY ADVS.SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN
SRI.T.K.ANANDA PADMANABHAN
RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONERS:
--------------------------------
1. MUBEENA,
D/O.ABDUL JABBAR, 'USMAN MANZIL' MUDAPURAM PO,
KIZHUVILAM VILLAGE, FROM KAROTTUPUTHEN VEEDU, PORADAM
CHADAYAMANGALAM.
2. SECRETARY,
PORADOM MUSLIM JAMA ATH, PORADAM, CHADAYMANGALAM,
KOLLAM DISTRICT
3. SECRETARY,
KARAKKAL MUSLIM JAMA ATH, KARALIKONAM, ARCHALLOOR PO.
KOLLAM DISTRICT
BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
03-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
C.K. ABDUL REHIM & K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.
.................................................
Mat.A.No.371 of 2015
..................................................
Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2015.
JUDGMENT
Abdul Rehim, J:
This appeal is filed against the order of the Family Court, Attingal in I.A.No.338/2015 in O.P.No.238/2015. Through the above said order an interim injunction application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Family Court.
2. Today when the matter is taken up for consideration, the counsel appearing on both sides submitted that O.P.No.238/2015 itself was dismissed by the Family Court, for default of the petitioner.
3. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the issue involved in this appeal has become infructuous. However, the appellant will be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum challenging any subsequent order if any be passed by the Family Court.
The appeal is dismissed as infructuous, subject to the liberty reserved as above.
Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge 2