SREEKANTH S. MALLIA v. SUMA P. MALLAN
Judgment
R.BASANT & M.C.HARIRANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.(C).No.19269 of 2009----------------------------------------Dated this the 22nd day of July 2009J U D G M E N TBASANT,JThe learned counsel for the petitioner submits that theissue of maintainability has already been decided in favour of thepetitioner as per order dated 17/7/2009 and, in thesecircumstances, no further directions are necessary in the matter.2.We note that even though the matter was heard asearly as in October 2008, the orders were pronounced only on17/7/2009. Unsatisfactory though the situation be, we aresatisfied that since the orders have already been pronounced on17/7/2009, no further directions are necessary now.3.This writ petition is accordingly dismissed as agreed.(R.BASANT, JUDGE)(M.C.HARIRANI, JUDGE)jsr W.P.C No.19269/092 W.P.C No.19269/093The petitioner has filed an application for divorce beforethe Family Court, Ernakulam. In that application, his wife therespondent has entered appearance and raised an objection tothe maintainability of the petition. The learned counsel for thepetitioner submits that arguments on the question ofmaintainability were heard on 17/10/2008 and orders werereserved. It is the grievance of the petitioner that thereafterorders have not been pronounced nor a date of posting has beengiven in O.P.No.231/2008. 2.If the submissions are true and correct, it must arousegreat amount of dissatisfaction in our mind. We deem itnecessary that the report of the Family Court is called for.3.Call for such report. In such report, the Family Courtshall report to the court whether it is true that hearing on thequestion of maintainability held and the orders were reserved on17/10/2008. Why is it that the orders have not beenpronounced? We need only mention that if these submissionsare true, we expect the Family Court to pass orders expeditiouslyand report compliance to this court.4.Await report of the Family Court. Call on 22/7/2009. W.P.C No.19269/094R.BASANT & M.C.HARIRANI, JJ..No. of 200ORDER/JUDGMENT 18/06/2009
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.