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.

Mujeeb Rahman vs Sajida

Mujeeb Rahman vs Sajida

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Oct 31, 2023
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1366986

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/28/2016

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mujeeb Rahman

Respondent

Sajida

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable mr.justice c.s.dias tuesday, the 31st day of october 2023 / 9th karthika, 1945 against the order in mc 80/2013 of family court, tirur revision petitioner/respondent: mujeeb rahman aged 30 years s/o.muhammed @ kunhimon, mankadavath palliyalil house, pallar, choondikkal, thirunavaya.p.o., tirur taluk sri.p.vijaya bhanu (sr.) smt.mitha sudhindran sri.v.c.sarath respondents/petitioners: 1 sajida, aged 26 years 2 minor dilshad akthar aged 4 years s/o.mujeeb rahman, represented by his mother 1st respondent, sajida, aged 26 years, sri.jithin lukose sri.p.samsudin this rev.petition(family court) having come up for admission on 31.10.2023, the court on the same day delivered the following:orderthe revision petition is filed challenging the orderpassed in m.c no.80/2013 of the family court, thrissur. the revision petitioner was the respondent and the respondents were the petitioners before the family court.2. today when the revision petition was takenup for consideration, the learned counsel appearing on both sides submitted that the subject matter in dispute between the parties has been settled out of court. on the basis of the said submission, the connected mat.appeal no.112/2016 was dismissed by this court on 25.10.2019. therefore, the revision petitioner is no longer desirous of prosecuting the revision petition. the said submission is recorded.3. in the light of the above submission, i am of the view that the revision petition has become infructuous. resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn. sd/-c.s.dias,judge ma/31.10.2023

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 9TH KARTHIKA, 1945 AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 80/2013 OF FAMILY COURT, TIRUR REVISION PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: MUJEEB RAHMAN AGED 30 YEARS S/O.MUHAMMED @ KUNHIMON, MANKADAVATH PALLIYALIL HOUSE, PALLAR, CHOONDIKKAL, THIRUNAVAYA.P.O., TIRUR TALUK SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) SMT.MITHA SUDHINDRAN SRI.V.C.SARATH RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: 1 SAJIDA, AGED 26 YEARS 2 MINOR DILSHAD AKTHAR AGED 4 YEARS S/O.MUJEEB RAHMAN, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT, SAJIDA, AGED 26 YEARS, SRI.JITHIN LUKOSE SRI.P.SAMSUDIN THIS REV.PETITION(FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The revision petition is filed challenging the order

passed in M.C No.80/2013 of the Family Court, Thrissur. The revision petitioner was the respondent and the respondents were the petitioners before the Family Court.

2. Today when the revision petition was taken

up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing on both sides submitted that the subject matter in dispute between the parties has been settled out of court. On the basis of the said submission, the connected Mat.Appeal No.112/2016 was dismissed by this Court on 25.10.2019. Therefore, the revision petitioner is no longer desirous of prosecuting the revision petition. The said submission is recorded.

3. In the light of the above submission, I am of the view that the revision petition has become infructuous. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/-C.S.DIAS,JUDGE ma/31.10.2023

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial