Nominal Index [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 5 - 21]Shereefa Munvara and Anr. v. Muhammed Kabeer, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 5Mathews J. Nedumpara v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 6Raju Abraham and Anr v. State of Kerala and Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 7Shaduli P.M. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 8Velayudhan and Anr v Kuttooli and Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 9XXX v. Gopalan...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 5 - 21]
Shereefa Munvara and Anr. v. Muhammed Kabeer, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 5
Mathews J. Nedumpara v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 6
Raju Abraham and Anr v. State of Kerala and Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 7
Shaduli P.M. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 8
Velayudhan and Anr v Kuttooli and Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 9
XXX v. Gopalan K.T. and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 10
Suresh K. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 11
The Divisional Manager v. Ameer Hamsa & connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 12
V.K. Chacko v. Vegetable And Fruit Promotion Council Keralam and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 13
Ashwin Abraham Cherian v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 14
Gopala Krishnan v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 15
P V Ravi v SPE/CBI Kochi, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 16
Aayisha Muhsin v. Principal Secretary and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 17
Actor Mohanlal Viswanathan v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 18
Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Union Congress and Ors v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 19
Anilkumar v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 20
The Authorized Officer and Chief Manager Kerala Gramin Bank v. M/s Prajith Builders and Developers Private Limited and Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 21
Judgments/ Orders This Week
Case Title: Shereefa Munvara and Anr. v. Muhammed Kabeer
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 5
Relying on Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana, the Kerala High Court recently held that a divorced Muslim woman can invoke Section 125 Cr.P.C. or Section 144 BNSS to claim maintenance from former husband even if he had discharged his obligations under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that when a Muslim divorced woman approaches the Family Court invoking Section 125 Cr.PC./Section 144 BNSS even after receiving benefits under the Muslim Women Protection Act, the Family Court cannot automatically dismiss the application but has to examine whether she is still able to support herself.
Case Title: Mathews J. Nedumpara v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 6
In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court dismissed a plea challenging Sections 2(c) (i), 14, 16 and 17(5) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu also refused to declare that Section 16 was applicable to judges of the superior courts, and that Section 17(5) has to be read along with the constitutional guarantee of right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Raju Abraham and Anr v. State of Kerala and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 7
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that borrowers cannot invoke writ jurisdiction to compel banks or financial institutions to extend the benefit of a One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme.
A division bench of Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S dismissed a writ appeal filed by borrowers and upheld the decision of a single judge refusing to interfere with recovery proceedings initiated by a co-operative bank.
Case Title: Shaduli P.M. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 8
The Kerala High Court recently held that there cannot be any discrimination between the children of the brother and those of the sister of a convict while granting emergency leave to attend their marriage.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath noted that almost all the Jail Superintendents in the State have been rejecting applications for emergency leaves of convicts to attend their brother's children's marriage.
Case Title: Velayudhan and Anr v Kuttooli and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 9
The Kerala High Court has held that a female heir, who otherwise had no inheritance rights under pre-1956 Hindu law, can acquire valid title through a voluntary partition deed executed by family members.
Justice Easwaran S. held that a registered partition deed consciously conferring a share on a female heir cannot be ignored on the ground that she lacked an antecedent right of inheritance under the Mitakshara law.
Case Title: XXX v. Gopalan K.T. and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 10
The Kerala High Court recently held that a victim's appeal against acquittal under Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita can be summarily dismissed when there is no prima facie material to show that victim has an arguable case.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian observed that the provision for summary dismissal of appeals provided under Section 425 would also apply to the appeals under Section 413.
Case Title: Suresh K. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 11
The Kerala High Court, in a recent ruling, laid down that the provision under the Juvenile Justice Act/Rules is only one of the modes to determine the age of a victim of a POCSO offence.
After examining Section 34 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the decisions of the Division Bench in Silvester Pigaruz v. State of Kerala (2024) and Biju v. State of Kerala (2024), Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed:
“The POCSO Act does not stipulate in section 34(2) that when the victim is a child, age can be determined only as per the law relating to juveniles…”
Case Title: The Divisional Manager v. Ameer Hamsa & connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 12
The Kerala High Court enhanced the notional income of an accident victim who was employed abroad and had sought compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, based on certain factual aspects even though the claimant had failed to produce salary certificate as per Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon was considering two appeals filed against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, one filed by the insurance company and the other by the claimant/victim of the accident.
Case Title: V.K. Chacko v. Vegetable And Fruit Promotion Council Keralam and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 13
The Kerala High Court recently ruled that the sanction to prosecute a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 cannot be accorded without hearing the public servant concerned when the request is made by a person other than a police officer or other law enforcement authority.
Justice A. Badharudeen was considering a plea preferred by a person who was directed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge to obtain sanction under Section 19(1) of the PC Act to proceed with his complaint against the officers of Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Counsel, Kerala (V.F.P.C.K), including the HR Manager-In-Charge. These persons were also arrayed in the plea as respondents.
Case Title: Ashwin Abraham Cherian v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 14
The Kerala High Court recently held that the District Authority can reject an application for No Objection Certificate under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 for not maintaining minimum distance from schools and other public places in accordance with the Central Pollution Control Board's guidelines.
Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim added that since a playground is integral to the functioning of schools, the distance from the school's compound wall and not its building has to be considered while considering the minimum distance.
Case Title: Gopala Krishnan v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 15
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment holding that a victim cannot filed a second appeal against the acquittal of an accused by seeking special leave from the High Court as per Section 419(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Relying on the Supreme Court's observations in Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu and Another, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas remarked:
“It is evident from the above observations itself that once the appellate remedy is invoked by the victim, the same party cannot prefer another appeal as in the form of a second appeal.”
Case Title: P V Ravi v SPE/CBI Kochi
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 16
The Kerala High Court has held that the existence of a civil decree for recovery of loan dues does not negate criminal liability for conspiracy and misappropriation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, holding that criminal culpability must be assessed independently of civil remedies
Justice A Badharudeen was delivering a judgment in a criminal appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed for misappropriation and conspiracy.
Case Title: Aayisha Muhsin v. Principal Secretary and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 17
While dealing with an inter-religious marriage under the Special Marriage Act, the Kerala High Court has held that if a spouse wishes to convert their religion, an additional entry can be incorporated in the marriage register to record his/her new name.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan thus directed the Registrar of Marriages, Panchayat Secretary concerned and other authorities to incorporate an additional entry in the marriage register and to issue a new marriage certificate with the wife's new name in this case, after her conversion from Hinduism to Islam.
Kerala High Court Absolves Actor Mohanlal In Manappuram Finance False Advertisement Case
Case Title: Actor Mohanlal Viswanathan v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 18
The Kerala High Court has absolved actor Mohanlal from liability in a consumer case alleging unfair trade practice by Manappuram Finance for demanding higher interest than what was advertised by it.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. remarked that as long as the actor was only the brand ambassador of Manappuram and did not, in any manner, persuade to avail their services, liability cannot be fastened against him.
Case Title: Actor Mohanlal Viswanathan v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 18
The Kerala High Court recently held that a brand ambassador will not be liable for a brand's unfair trade practice or deficiency in service unless a direct link is established between him and the consumer's transaction.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. however clarified that an action may lie against a brand ambassador/endorser under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act for false or misleading advertisements.
Kerala High Court Strikes Down Devaswom Recruitment Board's Power Over Guruvayoor Appointments
Case Title: Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Union Congress and Ors v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 19
The Kerala High Court has held that Section 9 of the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Act, 2015 (KDRB Act) which empowers the KDRB to prepare select lists for the appointment of candidates to various posts in the Guruvayoor Devaswom posts is unconstitutional.
The Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V M were considering an appeal filed by the Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Union Congress and others, challenging the relevant provisions of the KDRB Act.
Case Title: Anilkumar v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 20
The Kerala High Court has ruled that a magistrate taking cognizance based on a protest complaint must consider the refer report filed by the police and pass a speaking order.
Referring to the decisions in Parameswaran Nair v. Surendran [2009 (1) KLT 794] and C.R. Chandran v. State of Kerala [ILR 2024 (3) Ker. 245], Justice C. Pratheep Kumar observed:
“Therefore, it is evident that while taking cognizance of an offence based on a private complainant, especially one filed as a protest complaint against a refer report filed by the police, the Magistrate shall take into consideration the refer report as well. Further, it should be a speaking order, containing the materials justifying the order taking cognizance, as held by this court in the decisions referred above.”
Pre-Deposit For Filing SARFAESI Appeal Must Be Paid To Tribunal, Not Lending Bank: Kerala High Court
Case Title: The Authorized Officer and Chief Manager Kerala Gramin Bank v. M/s Prajith Builders and Developers Private Limited and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 21
The Kerala High Court has clarified that the mandatory pre-deposit required to file an appeal under the SARFAESI Act must be paid to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and not to the lending bank.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S delivered the ruling while allowing an appeal filed by Kerala Gramin Bank, setting aside a single judge's order that had directed the borrower to deposit money with the bank itself in order to pursue its appeal before the DRAT.
Other Important Developments This Week
Case Title: Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Ors.
Case No: WP(C) 36780/ 2017
The Kerala High Court on Monday (05 January) directed the stakeholders to furnish their inputs to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the collection and verification of nominee/ legal heir details at the time of admission of prisoners in the State, so that the SOP can finalised at the earliest.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V M was considering a suo motu petition concerning custodial deaths and compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased inmates.
Kerala High Court Satisfied With SIT Probe Into Sabarimala Gold Theft, Grants Six-Week Extension
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Case No: WP(C) No. 40608 of 2025
The Kerala High Court on Monday (January 5) expressed satisfaction regarding the manner in which the Special Investigation Team (SIT) is conducting investigation into the Sabarimala gold theft case.
The SIT had submitted a report regarding the progress into the investigation before the Court today and after examining the same, the Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar granted an extension of 6 weeks' time to complete the probe.
Case Title: Adv. Boris Paul v Seeram Sambasiva Rao IAS & Others
Case No: Con. Case (C) 3008/ 2025
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (06 January) expressed its displeasure over the State's failure to constitute a Management Unit for the conservation of Ashtamudi Wetland.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V M was considering a contempt petition by Advocate Boris Paul, former President of the Kollam Bar Association stating that the State has not complied with the directions laid down in the judgement dated July, 2025.
Case Title: Muhammed Anwar Saidu v. Bar Council of India and Others
Case No: WP(C) 39952/ 2025
The Kerala High Court was on Tuesday (January 06) informed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) that its Legal Education Committee will convene a meeting in 10 days to decide whether the compliance report submitted by the Government Law College, Kozhikode can be accepted for its affiliation.
The standing counsel for the BCI submitted before Justice V.G. Arun that the compliance report has been received but in view of the delay of 15 years, the decision as to whether the report can be accepted is upon the Legal Education Committee.
Kerala High Court Seeks Clarification From NHAI On Mobile App To Address Highway Maintenance Issues
Case Title: Prasad Somarajan v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case
Case No: WP(C) No. 20485 of 2024 and connected case
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (06 January) has sought clarification from the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) regarding the new feature in the mobile application 'Rajmargyatra' developed to address shortfalls in maintaining road standards prescribed by the Indian Road Congress (IRC).
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V M were considering public interest litigation which sought various reliefs, including a direction to the State of Kerala, the NHAI and the Kerala Road Safety Authority to comply with the guidelines issued by the Indian Road Congress with respect to pedestrian-friendly measures.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Tuesday (January 6) virtually inaugurated the implementation of paperless courts in the judicial district of Kalpetta in Wayanad at the Kerala High Court Auditorium.
This marks the first instance in which an entire district judiciary has become fully paperless in end-to-end functioning. All filings would be received electronically, scrutinised digitally and made available instantaneously to the courts through the District Court Case Management System (DCMS) developed by the High Court.
Case Title: Adv. Boris Paul v Seeram Sambasiva Rao IAS & Others
Case No: Con. Case (C) 3008/ 2025
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (07 January) clarified that the constitution of the Management Unit for Conservation of Ashtamudi Wetland directed by an earlier order does not require the creation of new posts.
The division bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V M was considering a contempt petition for non-compliance of its judgement dated July, 2025.
Case Title: Rahul B.R. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Case No: Bail Appl. 14427/2025
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (January 7) allowed the impleading petition filed by the de facto complainant in the anticipatory bail plea of Palakkad MLA Rahul Mamkootathil in the rape and miscarriage case alleged against him.
Justice A. Badharudeen allowed the de facto complainant's petition and extended the interim protection granted to Mamkootathil. The case is posted to January 21 for consideration.
Case Title: R.S. Sasikumar v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Case No: W.P.(C). No.54 of 2026
A former employee of the Kerala University moved the High Court on Tuesday (January 7) challenging the assignment of the University's land to AKG Centre for Research and Studies.
The plea before the Court was preferred by the former Joint Registrar of the University, and who later on become a member of the syndicate of Kerala University and the Cochin University of Science and Technology.
Justice C. Jayachandran noted that the plea cannot be maintained except as a public interest litigation since the petitioner was only an ex-employee of the University and do not have any private interest in the matter.
Case Title: Kerala Yukthi Vadhi Sangam v The Union of India and Ors
Case No: WP(C) 33093/ 2022
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (06 January) expressed concern over the prolonged delay by the State government in finalising legislation to curb black magic, witchcraft and other inhuman practices, and suggested the creation of a special cell to address complaints relating to such practices as an interim measure.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V M was hearing a PIL seeking effective steps to prevent atrocities committed in the name of superstition, sorcery and black magic.
Ashtamudi Wetland Management Unit Constituted: State Tells Kerala High Court
Case Title: Adv. Boris Paul v Seeram Sambasiva Rao IAS & Others
Case No: Con. Case (C) 3008/ 2025
The Kerala government informed the High Court on Thursday (08 January) that a notification has been issued by the Special Secretary, Government of Kerala, Environment Department constituting Ashtamudi Wetland Management Unit.
The submissions were made before the division bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V M which was considering a contempt petition for non-compliance of its judgement dated July, 2025.
Case Title: Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Ors
Case No: WP(C) 42844/ 2025
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (06 January) constituted a Mediation Infrastructure Committee to address the issues of infrastructural deficiencies in mediation centres across the State.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V M were considering a suo motu petition concerning the infrastructural requirements of mediation centres, including the adequate support staff and regular office stationary.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Case No: SSCR No. 33 of 2025
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (January 8) deprecated the delay on the part of Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) in complying with court's direction to submit audited accounts of expenses of the Global Ayyappa Sangamam, which was conducted on September 20 in the premises of Sabarimala Shrine and at the banks of the River Pamba.
The standing counsel for the TDB submitted that the report would be submitted before the Court within the said time. On hearing the same, the Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar observed:
"We deprecate the delay on the part of the Board in placing the audited accounts before the Special Commissioner.”
The Kerala High Court on Friday (09 January) bid farewell to its 39th Chief Justice, Justice Nitin Jamdar, who demitted office on superannuation.
A full court reference was held in the presence of judges, senior advocates, members of the Bar and court staff.
Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar expressed deep gratitude to the Bench, Bar and registry, describing the Kerala High Court not merely as a workplace but as a home. Emphasising that the judiciary functions as a system sustained by the quality of interactions among its stakeholders, he spoke of judicial service as a deeply ethical and inward journey.
Justice Soumen Sen Sworn-In As Chief Justice Of Kerala High Court
Justice Soumen Sen was sworn in as the 40th Chief Justice of Kerala High Court on Saturday (January 10).
The oath of office was administered by Governor Rajendra Arlekar at Raj Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram. Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan was also present during the swearing in ceremony.