Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

K.HARILAL,J.

The appellant herein is the paternal grandmother of the minor child and this appeal has been filed, challenging the order passed by the Family Court, Malappuram in I.A.No.1388/2017 in O.P.No.502/2014.

2. The respondent herein filed the aforesaid interlocutory application for cancelling the direction in O.P.No.502/2014 to send the child to the residence of the appellant on every Friday. According to the respondent, O.P.No.502/2014 was disposed of as per a joint statement on 22.03.2016 and as per the said joint statement, the minor named Fathima Shahna was kept in the custody of the respondent. It was agreed that the Mat.Appeal.No.133 OF 2020 ..3.. minor child will go to the residence of the appellant herein on every Friday at 5.00 p.m. and will come back to the residence of the respondent at 5.00 p.m on every Sunday. The respondent wanted to alter the said conditions on the ground that now, the appellant herein is not interested to have the custody of the child and she has not availed of the opportunity to get the custody of the child in every week.

Mat.Appeal.No.133 OF 2020 ..4..

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

5. The sum and substance of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the counsel, who represented the appellant, submitted no instructions without informing the appellant and the appellant has moved against the counsel, alleging professional misconduct. According to the learned counsel, the appellant was actively contesting the aforesaid interlocutory application and she has strong objection against the deletion of the conditions in the joint statement. Due to the laches from the part of the counsel, she was deprived of his right to contest the interlocutory application on merits. The Mat.Appeal.No.133 OF 2020 ..5.. learned counsel prayed for granting an opportunity to contest the interlocutory application on merits.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent advanced arguments to justify the findings in the impugned order. According to him, the appellant was not diligent in prosecuting the interlocutory application and hence the counsel submitted no instructions.

7. Going by the impugned order, we find that the Family Court heard the appellant and passed the impugned order, when the counsel appearing for the appellant herein submitted that he has no instructions from the appellant. There is no material to arrive at a finding that the counsel submitted 'no instruction', after making any Mat.Appeal.No.133 OF 2020 ..6.. attempt to contact the appellant to get instruction from him. In view of the fact that the impugned order was passed without hearing the appellant herein, we find that an opportunity can be given to the appellant to contest the interlocutory application on merits.