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.

Renjith vs Asha

Renjith vs ASHA

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Oct 28, 2023
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1335253

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
RP/137/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Renjith

Respondent

ASHA

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr. justice a. badharudeen saturday, the 28th day of october 2023 / 6th karthika, 1945 against the order dated 15.2.2018 in mc 47/2017 of family court, pathanamthitta r.p.(f.c.)no.310/2022 of high court of kerala review petitioner/revision petitioner: renjith aged 36 years s/o remanan, c/o babu, bhinu bhavan, prakkanam p.o, chenneerkara village, kozhencherry taluk, pathanamthitta district, pin-689652 by advs. sankaran nair d. c.c.anoop jolly george respondents/respondents: 1 asha aged 28 years, w/o.renjith krishna vilasam, attachakkal p.o., vettoor muri, konni thazham village, konni taluk. pathanamthitta district. pin-689692 2 niranjitha, aged 4 years, (minor), d/o.renjith, (2nd petitioner is minor represented by her mother asha, w/o.renjith,krishna vilasam, attachakkal p.o., vettoor muri, konni thazham village, konni taluk. pathanamthitta district. pin-689692 this review petition having come up for admission on 28.10.2023, the court on the same day delivered the following: in r.p.(f.c.)no.310/2022 2orderdated this the 28th day of october, 2023 when the matter came up for consideration, there is no representation for the review petitioner.2. in fact, already this court dismissed r.p.(f.c.)no.310/2022, dated 10.11.2022, challenging the order in m.c.no.47/2017 on the files of the family court, pathanamthitta, on merits and there is no reason to revisit the said order, since there is no error on the face of the records. therefore, this review petition is found to be not maintainable and is dismissed with direction to the family court to execute the order in m.c.no.47/2017, without the registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the family court, pathanamthitta, for execution of the order, without sd/- a. badharudeen judge bb

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN SATURDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1945 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.2.2018 IN MC 47/2017 OF FAMILY COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA R.P.(F.C.)NO.310/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER/REVISION PETITIONER: RENJITH AGED 36 YEARS S/O REMANAN, C/O BABU, BHINU BHAVAN, PRAKKANAM P.O, CHENNEERKARA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689652 BY ADVS. SANKARAN NAIR D. C.C.ANOOP JOLLY GEORGE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 ASHA AGED 28 YEARS, W/O.RENJITH KRISHNA VILASAM, ATTACHAKKAL P.O., VETTOOR MURI, KONNI THAZHAM VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK. PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. PIN-689692 2 NIRANJITHA, AGED 4 YEARS, (MINOR), D/O.RENJITH, (2ND PETITIONER IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER ASHA, W/O.RENJITH,KRISHNA VILASAM, ATTACHAKKAL P.O., VETTOOR MURI, KONNI THAZHAM VILLAGE, KONNI TALUK. PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. PIN-689692 THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: IN R.P.(F.C.)NO.310/2022 2

ORDER

Dated this the 28th day of October, 2023 When the matter came up for consideration, there is no representation for the review petitioner.

2. In fact, already this Court dismissed R.P.

(F.C.)No.310/2022, dated 10.11.2022, challenging the order in M.C.No.47/2017 on the files of the Family Court, Pathanamthitta, on merits and there is no reason to revisit the said order, since there is no error on the face of the records. Therefore, this review petition is found to be not maintainable and is dismissed with direction to the Family Court to execute the order in M.C.No.47/2017, without The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Family Court, Pathanamthitta, for execution of the order, without Sd/- A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE Bb

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial