Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Priya Abraham vs Navin Skaria

Priya Abraham vs Navin Skaria

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Apr 07, 2025
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1279300

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
RP/413/2025
Subject
MRTP

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

MRTP

Key legal issue
MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Priya Abraham

Respondent

Navin Skaria

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr. justice devan ramachandran & the honourable mrs. justice m.b. snehalatha monday, the 7th day of april 2025 / 17th chaithra, 1947 rp no. 413 of 2025 against the judgment dated 22.01.2025 in mat.appeal no.1096 of 2024 of high court of kerala review petitioner/respondent in mat appeal: priya abraham, aged 39 years, d/o. annie thomas konnackal house, tc 4/2239-29, b-7, district represented by power of attorney holder abraham jacob, aged 71 years, s/o late k.c.jacob, konnackal house, tc 4/2239-29, b-7, district, pin - 695004 by adv v.philip mathews respondent/appellant in mat appeal: navin skaria, aged 44, s/o. skaria marangattu house vakathanam p.o, kottayam district, pin - by advs. smruthi sasidharan aadil mubarak u.a.(k/4300/2024) brijesh n.b.(k/001226/2024) aswathy amby(k/002062/2022) this review petition having come up for admission on 07.04.2025, the court on the same day passed the following: rp 413/2025o r d e rdevan ramachandran, j.this petition, seeking review of the judgment of this court dated 22.01.2025, has been filed by the petitioner alleging that the child is unwilling to go to the father, or to even talk to him, in terms of the directions in the judgment.2. we are afraid that this is not a ground that can beimpelled for review because, we had made it clear that the interaction of the father with the child is subject to the consent of the latter. therefore, we see no reason to interfere at this stage any more. consequently, this review petition is dismissed. devan ramachandran m.b. snehalatha rr

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RP NO. 413 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.01.2025 IN MAT.APPEAL NO.1096 OF 2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN MAT APPEAL: PRIYA ABRAHAM, AGED 39 YEARS, D/O. ANNIE THOMAS KONNACKAL HOUSE, TC 4/2239-29, B-7, DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ABRAHAM JACOB, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O LATE K.C.JACOB, KONNACKAL HOUSE, TC 4/2239-29, B-7, DISTRICT, PIN - 695004 BY ADV V.PHILIP MATHEWS RESPONDENT/APPELLANT IN MAT APPEAL: NAVIN SKARIA, AGED 44, S/O. SKARIA MARANGATTU HOUSE VAKATHANAM P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - BY ADVS. SMRUTHI SASIDHARAN AADIL MUBARAK U.A.(K/4300/2024) BRIJESH N.B.(K/001226/2024) ASWATHY AMBY(K/002062/2022) THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: RP 413/2025

O R D E R

Devan Ramachandran, J.

This petition, seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated 22.01.2025, has been filed by the petitioner alleging that the child is unwilling to go to the father, or to even talk to him, in terms of the directions in the judgment.

2. We are afraid that this is not a ground that can be

impelled for review because, we had made it clear that the interaction of the father with the child is subject to the consent of the latter. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere at this stage any more. Consequently, this Review Petition is dismissed. DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN M.B. SNEHALATHA RR

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial