Ahsana Naval v. Sabith Yunus
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2015/11TH ASHADHA, 1937 RP.No. 548 of 2015 (R) IN OP (FC).181/2015 -------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP (FC) 181/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 10-06-2015 REVIEW PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:
------------------------------------------------ AHSANA NAVAL AGED 22 YEARS D/O.DR.K.MOHAMMED SAJID, DARUL IHSAN, P T USHA ROAD THIRUVEEDU LANE, KOZHIKODE, PIN 673032 BY ADV. SRI.MANJERI SUNDERRAJ RESPONDENTS/2ND REPONDENT & PETITIONER:
---------------------------------------------------------
1. SABITH YUNUS, AGED 31 YEARS NALAKATH, S/O.DR.YUNUS NALAKATH, UDAILIYA VEEDU PATATHANAPURAM, VALILLAPUZHA P O, AREECODE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT
2. DR. K. MUHAMMED SAJITH KALLINGAL S/O.AHAMMAD AMMEN, DARUL ISHAN, P T USHA ROAD THER VEEDU LINE, KOZHIKODE R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. P.M.ZAFARULLA BY SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: pmn/
C.K.ABDUL REHIM & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.
----------------------------------------- RP .No. 548 of 2015 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2015
JUDGMENT
K.Ramakrishnan,J.
This review petition is filed by the 1st respondent to review the judgment passed by this court on 10.6.2015. It is alleged in the review petition that as per the orders of this court interim custody was given to the respondent and he was permitted to take the children to his brother's house. There will be none in the house to look after the children. So it is unsafe to send the children to him. So she wants to review the order passed by this court.
2. Heard both sides. We have interacted with the review petitioner present before this court as requested by the counsel for the review petitioner. The apprehension of the review petitioner is that if the children were given to the respondent, he is likely to take them out of Calicut and there will be none to look after the children in the house as he will be alone in the
RP.No.548/2014 house. Counsel for the respondent in the review petition submitted that if the apprehension of the review petitioner is that there will be none in the house to look after the children, he is prepared to bring his father or mother to be present with him in the house so as to cater the need of the children. So we feel that the review petition can be disposed of on the basis of the submission of the counsel for the respondent. The submission made by the counsel for the respondent that either father or mother of the respondent herein in the review petition will be present in the house in which the children were permitted to be taken as per the order of this court during their stay with him is recorded and the review petition is disposed of accordingly. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE Pmn/
RP.No.548/2014