BY AD vs PRAVEEN K. JOY

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 OP (FC) NO. 108 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.11.2023 IN IA 26/2023 IN GOP NO.1537 OF 2023, FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN IA NO.26 AND 27 AND RESPONDENT IN GOP 1537/2016 OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR: DIVYA.M.S, AGED 31 YEARS, D/O SUKUMARA, MONEKATTU HOUSE, KANNARA DESOM, NEAR COMPANYPADI, KANNARA P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SUKUMARAN.M.N, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O NARAYANAN, MONEKKATTU HOUSE, COMPANYPADI, KANNARA, PEECHI, THRISSUR, PIN – 680652. BY ADVS. PRAVEEN K. JOY E.S.SANEEJ RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN IA NO.26 AND 27 AND PETITIONER OP(FC)Nos.63/2024 & 108/2024 -4- IN GOP 1537/2016 OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR :: AMITH, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O SOMAN, THANDASSERRY HOUSE, PAZHUVIL WEST DESOM, KURUMBILAVU VILLAGE, PAZHUVIL P.O, WEST, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680564. BY ADV. DHANYA P.ASHOKAN M.R.VENUGOPAL(K/000472/1994) S. MUHAMMAD ALIKHAN(K/000644/2020) ATHULYA V.R.(K/000850/2021) THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, ALONG WITH OP (FC).63/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(FC)Nos.63/2024 & 108/2024 -5- JUDGMENT [OP (FC) Nos.63/2024, 108/2024] Devan Ramachandran, J. We propose to be as brief as possible in this judgment, adverting to the peculiar circumstances and facts presented.

2. We are disposing of both these Original Petitions together because, the factual circumstances involved are common.

3. The petitioner and the respondent were married, but divorced and admittedly, both of them are remarried now. They have a son of 11 years in their union and he is now caught between the fight of his parents regarding his custody. The petitioner-mother went to Canada to study and she moved I.A.No.26/2023 in G.O.P OP(FC)Nos.63/2024 & 108/2024 -6- 1537/2023 before the learned Family Court, Trissur, seeking permission to take the child with her; while, the respondent filed I.A.No.20/2022 in the same G.O.P., seeking that he be given custody of the child, so as to take him to Dubai, where he was employed.

4. The learned Family Court dismissed I.A.No.26/2023 filed by the mother holding that: ‘If the child is taken to Canada there is no doubt at all that the child will be totally alienate from the father. Moreover in view of the diplomatic strain between India and Canada it will not be possible to inforce any of the orders of the court at Canada. Suppose the petitioner and step father become citizen of Canada and the child also acquired citizenship at Canada there will be no purpose at all for OP(FC)Nos.63/2024 & 108/2024 -7- all these proceedings. None of the orders will be able to inforce and the father will not be able to exercise any of his right or to discharge his duty towards the child. The petitioner has no property in India whereas the respondent has no properties in India. So, I find that in no circumstances, the petitioner can be permitted to take the child to Canada. So there cannot be any direction to give authorization letter to the respondent (sic).

5. The learned Court then allowed I.A.No.20/2022, thus allowing the father to be in custody of the child. For ordering so, the learned Court concluded as under: I find that in the happening of change of circumstance whereby child is alone it is necessary to give the custody of the child to the father of the child. It is also important to note that UAE is a reciprocating territory has notified by Central Government u/s OP(FC)Nos.63/2024 & 108/2024 -8- 44 A CPC. So it is easy to exercise the control over the child by the court. In these circumstances, I find that the father can be permitted to take the child to Dubai and to continue his education at Dubai after this academic year.

6. After ordering as above, the learned Family Court reserved certain rights in favour of the mother, to the following effect: At the same time, the petitioner mother will be entitled for the custody of the child during the vacation period whenever she came back to India. Similarly the mother will be entitled for the custody of the child during every 2nd Saturday and Sunday (from 10 am on Saturday till 5 pm on Sunday). All the visitation rights now available to the father as per the mediation agreement and subsequent orders will be equally applicable to mother.

7. The petitioner challenges both these orders as being illegal and unlawful.

8. Sri.Praveen K. Joy – learned counsel for the petitioner-mother, submitted that his client is now returning to India permanently, and that, OP(FC)Nos.63/2024 & 108/2024 -9- therefore, she is entitled to the custody of her child. He asserted that, by the liberty reserved to her in the afore extracted portion of the order, she is fully entitled to seek the same.

9. However, in refutation, Smt.Dhanya P. Asokan, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.M.R.Venugopal – learned counsel for the respondent-father, submitted that the order in question was not based on a summary procedure, but after allowing the parties to trial and adducing of evidence. She contended that, it is the welfare of the child which is paramount and that this was specifically noticed by the learned Court, while issuing the impugned orders. She concluded arguing that, in any event, the petitioner cannot now assail the orders because, she admittedly was in Canada OP(FC)Nos.63/2024 & 108/2024 -10- throughout; and that if she is to now return to India, then she may obtain a fresh cause of action, but cannot prosecute these Original Petitions.

10. There is some force in the afore submissions of the learned Senior Counsel because, by efflux of time and conduct of parties, the orders impugned here have already been implemented and are in operation.

11. The child is admittedly with the father in Dubai, handed over to him by the petitioner – mother, subsequent to the orders in question.

12. Indubitably, therefore, as and when the petitioner – mother returns to India, she surely will obtain a right to seek further custodial arrangements with respect to her son; OP(FC)Nos.63/2024 & 108/2024 -11- and this is inescapable even if specific liberty for this had not been reserved to her in the impugned orders. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held it apodictically that every order of permanent custody is essentially interlocutory in its tenor and that, should there be changed circumstances, the parties can seek modification or variation of the same appositely. In the case at hand, if the mother is to establish that she is back in India and thus to urge changed circumstances, we see no reason why she cannot approach the learned Family Court again. In fact, the learned Senior Counsel, Smt.Dhanya Ashokan, affirmed this as a proposition of law. In the afore circumstances, we close these Original Petitions, without intervening with the OP(FC)Nos.63/2024 & 108/2024 -12- impugned orders; but reserving every liberty that may be available to the parties as per law. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- M.B.SNEHALATHA JUDGE OP(FC)Nos.63/2024 & 108/2024 -13- APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 108/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT P7 EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 DATED 03.03.2017 OF FAMILY COURT THRISSUR TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 DATED 24.04.2017 OF THE FAMILY COURT THRISSUR TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN OP NO. 2178/2017 DATED 12.04.2018 OF THE FAMILY COURT THRISSUR TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO. 3461/2018 IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 DATED 22.04.2019 OF FAMILY COURT THRISSUR TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(FC) NO. 530/2019 DATED 11.10.2019 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN IA NO. 3707/2019 AND IA NO. 4070/2019 IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR DATED 27.11.2019 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN IA NO.18/2022 AND IA NO. 25/2023 IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 DATED 27.03.2023 OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR EXHIBIT P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION OP(FC)Nos.63/2024 & 108/2024 -14- EXHIBIT P10 NUMBERED AS IA NO. 26/2023 IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 FILED BEFORE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION NUMBERED AS IA NO. 27/2023 IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR EXHIBIT P11 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(FC) 503/2023 DATED 10.08.20203 EXHIBIT P12 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(FC) 319/2023 DATED 24.08.2023 EXHIBIT P13 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN IA NO. 26/2023 AND IA NO. 27/2023 IN OP NO. 1537/2016 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR DATED 04.11.2023 OP(FC)Nos.63/2024 & 108/2024 -15- APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 63/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT P7 EXHIBIT P8 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 DATED 03.03.2017 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 DATED 24.04.2017 OF THE FAMILY COURT THRISSUR THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN OP NO. 2178/2017 DATED 12.04.2018 OF THE FAMILY COURT THRISSUR TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO. 3461/2018 IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 DATED 22.04.2019 OF FAMILY COURT THRISSUR TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(FC) NO. 530/2019 DATED 11.10.2019 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN IA NO. 3707/2019 AND IA NO. 4070/2019 IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR DATED 27.11.2019 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN IA NO.18/2022 AND IA NO. 25/2023 IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 DATED 27.03.2023 OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION NUMBERED AS IA NO. 26/2023 IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 FILED BEFORE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR EXHIBIT P10 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION NUMBERED AS IA NO. 27/2023 IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 OP(FC)Nos.63/2024 & 108/2024 -16- EXHIBIT P11 EXHIBIT P12 EXHIBIT P13 EXHIBIT P14 EXHIBIT P15 EXHIBIT P16 EXHIBIT P17 FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(FC) 503/2023 DATED 10.08.20203 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION NUMBERED AS IA NO. 20/2022 IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION NUMBERED AS IA NO. 40/2023 IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION IN IA NO. 20/2022 IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION IN IA NO. 40/2023 IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(FC) 319/2023 DATED 24.08.2023 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN IA NO. 20/2022 AND IA NO. 40/2023 IN OP NO. 1537/2016 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR DATED 04.11.2023 EXHIBIT P18 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MARRIAGE INVITATION LETTER

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947 OP (FC) NO. 108 OF 2024 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.11.2023 IN IA 26/2023 IN GOP NO.1537 OF 2023, FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN IA NO.26 AND 27 AND RESPONDENT IN GOP 1537/2016 OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR: DIVYA.M.S, AGED 31 YEARS, D/O SUKUMARA, MONEKATTU HOUSE, KANNARA DESOM, NEAR COMPANYPADI, KANNARA P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SUKUMARAN.M.N, AGED 71 YEARS, S/O NARAYANAN, MONEKKATTU HOUSE, COMPANYPADI, KANNARA, PEECHI, THRISSUR, PIN – 680652. BY ADVS. PRAVEEN K. JOY E.S.SANEEJ RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN IA NO.26 AND 27 AND PETITIONER OP(FC)Nos.63/2024 & 108/2024 -4- IN GOP 1537/2016 OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR :: AMITH, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O SOMAN, THANDASSERRY HOUSE, PAZHUVIL WEST DESOM, KURUMBILAVU VILLAGE, PAZHUVIL P.O, WEST, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680564. BY ADV. DHANYA P.ASHOKAN M.R.VENUGOPAL(K/000472/1994) S. MUHAMMAD ALIKHAN(K/000644/2020) ATHULYA V.R.(K/000850/2021) THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2025, ALONG WITH OP (FC).63/2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP(FC)Nos.63/2024 & 108/2024 -5- JUDGMENT [OP (FC) Nos.63/2024, 108/2024] Devan Ramachandran, J. We propose to be as brief as possible in this judgment, adverting to the peculiar circumstances and facts presented.

2. We are disposing of both these Original Petitions together because, the factual circumstances involved are common.

3. The petitioner and the respondent were married, but divorced and admittedly, both of them are remarried now. They have a son of 11 years in their union and he is now caught between the fight of his parents regarding his custody. The petitioner-mother went to Canada to study and she moved I.A.No.26/2023 in G.O.P OP(FC)Nos.63/2024 & 108/2024 -6- 1537/2023 before the learned Family Court, Trissur, seeking permission to take the child with her; while, the respondent filed I.A.No.20/2022 in the same G.O.P., seeking that he be given custody of the child, so as to take him to Dubai, where he was employed.

4. The learned Family Court dismissed I.A.No.26/2023 filed by the mother holding that: ‘If the child is taken to Canada there is no doubt at all that the child will be totally alienate from the father. Moreover in view of the diplomatic strain between India and Canada it will not be possible to inforce any of the orders of the court at Canada. Suppose the petitioner and step father become citizen of Canada and the child also acquired citizenship at Canada there will be no purpose at all for OP(FC)Nos.63/2024 & 108/2024 -7- all these proceedings. None of the orders will be able to inforce and the father will not be able to exercise any of his right or to discharge his duty towards the child. The petitioner has no property in India whereas the respondent has no properties in India. So, I find that in no circumstances, the petitioner can be permitted to take the child to Canada. So there cannot be any direction to give authorization letter to the respondent (sic).

5. The learned Court then allowed I.A.No.20/2022, thus allowing the father to be in custody of the child. For ordering so, the learned Court concluded as under: I find that in the happening of change of circumstance whereby child is alone it is necessary to give the custody of the child to the father of the child. It is also important to note that UAE is a reciprocating territory has notified by Central Government u/s OP(FC)Nos.63/2024 & 108/2024 -8- 44 A CPC. So it is easy to exercise the control over the child by the court. In these circumstances, I find that the father can be permitted to take the child to Dubai and to continue his education at Dubai after this academic year.

6. After ordering as above, the learned Family Court reserved certain rights in favour of the mother, to the following effect: At the same time, the petitioner mother will be entitled for the custody of the child during the vacation period whenever she came back to India. Similarly the mother will be entitled for the custody of the child during every 2nd Saturday and Sunday (from 10 am on Saturday till 5 pm on Sunday). All the visitation rights now available to the father as per the mediation agreement and subsequent orders will be equally applicable to mother.

7. The petitioner challenges both these orders as being illegal and unlawful.

8. Sri.Praveen K. Joy – learned counsel for the petitioner-mother, submitted that his client is now returning to India permanently, and that, OP(FC)Nos.63/2024 & 108/2024 -9- therefore, she is entitled to the custody of her child. He asserted that, by the liberty reserved to her in the afore extracted portion of the order, she is fully entitled to seek the same.

9. However, in refutation, Smt.Dhanya P. Asokan, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.M.R.Venugopal – learned counsel for the respondent-father, submitted that the order in question was not based on a summary procedure, but after allowing the parties to trial and adducing of evidence. She contended that, it is the welfare of the child which is paramount and that this was specifically noticed by the learned Court, while issuing the impugned orders. She concluded arguing that, in any event, the petitioner cannot now assail the orders because, she admittedly was in Canada OP(FC)Nos.63/2024 & 108/2024 -10- throughout; and that if she is to now return to India, then she may obtain a fresh cause of action, but cannot prosecute these Original Petitions.

10. There is some force in the afore submissions of the learned Senior Counsel because, by efflux of time and conduct of parties, the orders impugned here have already been implemented and are in operation.

11. The child is admittedly with the father in Dubai, handed over to him by the petitioner – mother, subsequent to the orders in question.

12. Indubitably, therefore, as and when the petitioner – mother returns to India, she surely will obtain a right to seek further custodial arrangements with respect to her son; OP(FC)Nos.63/2024 & 108/2024 -11- and this is inescapable even if specific liberty for this had not been reserved to her in the impugned orders. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held it apodictically that every order of permanent custody is essentially interlocutory in its tenor and that, should there be changed circumstances, the parties can seek modification or variation of the same appositely. In the case at hand, if the mother is to establish that she is back in India and thus to urge changed circumstances, we see no reason why she cannot approach the learned Family Court again. In fact, the learned Senior Counsel, Smt.Dhanya Ashokan, affirmed this as a proposition of law. In the afore circumstances, we close these Original Petitions, without intervening with the OP(FC)Nos.63/2024 & 108/2024 -12- impugned orders; but reserving every liberty that may be available to the parties as per law. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- M.B.SNEHALATHA JUDGE OP(FC)Nos.63/2024 & 108/2024 -13- APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 108/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT P7 EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 DATED 03.03.2017 OF FAMILY COURT THRISSUR TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 DATED 24.04.2017 OF THE FAMILY COURT THRISSUR TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN OP NO. 2178/2017 DATED 12.04.2018 OF THE FAMILY COURT THRISSUR TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO. 3461/2018 IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 DATED 22.04.2019 OF FAMILY COURT THRISSUR TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(FC) NO. 530/2019 DATED 11.10.2019 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN IA NO. 3707/2019 AND IA NO. 4070/2019 IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR DATED 27.11.2019 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN IA NO.18/2022 AND IA NO. 25/2023 IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 DATED 27.03.2023 OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR EXHIBIT P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION OP(FC)Nos.63/2024 & 108/2024 -14- EXHIBIT P10 NUMBERED AS IA NO. 26/2023 IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 FILED BEFORE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION NUMBERED AS IA NO. 27/2023 IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR EXHIBIT P11 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(FC) 503/2023 DATED 10.08.20203 EXHIBIT P12 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(FC) 319/2023 DATED 24.08.2023 EXHIBIT P13 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN IA NO. 26/2023 AND IA NO. 27/2023 IN OP NO. 1537/2016 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR DATED 04.11.2023 OP(FC)Nos.63/2024 & 108/2024 -15- APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 63/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT P7 EXHIBIT P8 EXHIBIT P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 DATED 03.03.2017 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 DATED 24.04.2017 OF THE FAMILY COURT THRISSUR THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN OP NO. 2178/2017 DATED 12.04.2018 OF THE FAMILY COURT THRISSUR TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO. 3461/2018 IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 DATED 22.04.2019 OF FAMILY COURT THRISSUR TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(FC) NO. 530/2019 DATED 11.10.2019 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN IA NO. 3707/2019 AND IA NO. 4070/2019 IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR DATED 27.11.2019 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN IA NO.18/2022 AND IA NO. 25/2023 IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 DATED 27.03.2023 OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION NUMBERED AS IA NO. 26/2023 IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 FILED BEFORE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR EXHIBIT P10 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION NUMBERED AS IA NO. 27/2023 IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 OP(FC)Nos.63/2024 & 108/2024 -16- EXHIBIT P11 EXHIBIT P12 EXHIBIT P13 EXHIBIT P14 EXHIBIT P15 EXHIBIT P16 EXHIBIT P17 FILED BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(FC) 503/2023 DATED 10.08.20203 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION NUMBERED AS IA NO. 20/2022 IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION NUMBERED AS IA NO. 40/2023 IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION IN IA NO. 20/2022 IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OBJECTION IN IA NO. 40/2023 IN GOP NO. 1537/2016 OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(FC) 319/2023 DATED 24.08.2023 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN IA NO. 20/2022 AND IA NO. 40/2023 IN OP NO. 1537/2016 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR DATED 04.11.2023 EXHIBIT P18 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MARRIAGE INVITATION LETTER