SREELAL Vs. RAKHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners challenge Ext.P16 order of the learned Family Court, South Paravur, which has found that OP(Others) No.1594/2023 filed by the 1st respondent herein, is maintainable before it.

(2.) Sri.Pirappancode V.S.Sudheer - learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that Ext.P16 is illegal because it has entered into an affirmative conclusion that OP(Others) No.1594/2023 is maintainable, without properly adverting to his client's contentions. Though Sri.Pirappancode V.S.Sudheer was vehement in his afore submission, he was however, unable to inform us on which application Ext.P16 order has been issued; explaining that, in fact, the cause title of the said order is in error since it shows the 1 st respondent as the petitioner. He pointed out that the cause title appears to be that as shown in the Original Petition, but could not inform us if his clients had moved a separate application against the maintainability of the said original petition, or if this was an objection raised by them in their counter/written statement.

(3.) We have examined Ext.P6, and as rightly shown by Sri.Pirappancode V.S.Sudheer, its cause title appears to be that as available in the Original Petition; and further, there is no mention of any application having been preferred by the petitioners herein against its maintainability.