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.

Baby vs Mala

BABY vs MALA

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Apr 02, 2025
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1281906

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 Orders High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
RPFC/110/2016
Subject
Sales Tax

Case Summary

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

Sales Tax

Key legal issue
Sales Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

BABY

Respondent

MALA

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable dr. justice kauser edappagath wednesday, the 2nd day of april 2025 / 12th chaithra, 1947 rpfc no. 110 of 2016 against the order dated 27.10.2015 in mc no.72 of 2014 of family court, palakkad revision petitioner/counter petitioner:baby aged 44 years d/o.chami, arakulambu veedu, vithanassery, vallanghi village, chittur taluk, palakkad district. sri.jacob sebastian respondents/petitioners: 1 mala aged 35 years w/o.baby, nadakkavu veedu, vithanassery, vallanghi village, chittur taluk, palakkad district, pin - 678 101. 2 aiswarya aged 15 years 3 anaswara aged 9 years respondents 2 and 3 are rep. by natural guardian, mother ist respondent mala) sri.v.a.johnson (varikkappallil) this rev.petition(family court) having come up for admission on 02.04.2025, the court on the same day delivered the following:orderit is submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and the petitioner does not want to proceed with the revision petition further. hence, the revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn. sd/- dr. kauser edappagath judge br

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RPFC NO. 110 OF 2016 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.10.2015 IN MC NO.72 OF 2014 OF FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:

BABY AGED 44 YEARS D/O.CHAMI, ARAKULAMBU VEEDU, VITHANASSERY, VALLANGHI VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: 1 MALA AGED 35 YEARS W/O.BABY, NADAKKAVU VEEDU, VITHANASSERY, VALLANGHI VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 101. 2 AISWARYA AGED 15 YEARS 3 ANASWARA AGED 9 YEARS RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE REP. BY NATURAL GUARDIAN, MOTHER IST RESPONDENT MALA) SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

It is submitted that the matter has been settled between the parties and the petitioner does not want to proceed with the revision petition further. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE BR

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial