Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 9 –15, 2025

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 323 - 337]State of Kerala v. Joe Thomas and others, and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 323Xx v XX, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 324Xxx v. Xxx & Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 325Binsi and another v. Sandeep Chandran, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 326Iruvaikonam Bhagavathi Temple & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 327Dipin Vidhyadharan and Another v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 328Shafeena P. H. v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 329Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel M.V. Korea Chemi & Anr. v. Siluvaipichai Francies & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 330Santhosh Kumar N P v. State - Station House Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 331XX and Others v State of Kerala and Another & Connected Case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 332Sheela Francis Parakkal and Others v The Authorised Officer and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 333Dr Bibilash B. S v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 334Devidas C. & Others v. Cochin Devaswom Board & Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 335Sheela George and another v. V.M. Alexander, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 336M/s Varsha Fresh Meat Products Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 337Judgments/ Orders This WeekBar On Credit Society Members Contesting Beyond 3 Terms Valid: Kerala HC Upholds S.28 (2A) Of Co-operative Societies Amendment Act, 2023Case No: State of Kerala v. Joe Thomas and others, and connected casesCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 323The Kerala High Court has, in a recent judgment, upheld the constitutional validity of Section 28(2A) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, which barred the members of Managing Committees of Credit Societies from contesting in elections after three terms. The Division Bench comprising of Justice Amit Rawal and Justice K.V. Jayakumar reversed the judgment of the Single Bench, which had struck down the provision in question.[Domestic Violence] Not Unusual For Wife To Forgive Husband, Withdraw Case Against Him To Protect Family: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Xx v XXCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 324The Kerala High Court observed that it was not unusual for a wife to close criminal cases filed by her against her husband to save him. The Court said that a wife does so in the expectation that her husband would change.The Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha observed that a woman will forgive to protect her family.Non-Disclosure Of Earlier Crime Lodged Against Same Accused By Same Complainant Shows Falsity Of Allegations: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Xxx v. Xxx & Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 325Quashing an FIR against a man on allegations of rape made by his sister-in-law, the Kerala High Court said that non-disclosure of serious allegations in an earlier complaint against the same accused by same de-facto complainant indicated falsity of allegations.Justice A. Badharudeen was hearing a plea moved by the petitioner, the elder brother of the de facto complainant's husband, who was booked for rape and criminal trespass in an FIR lodged by the police.Not Necessary To Assess Applicant's Mental Status In Maintenance Proceedings: Kerala High CourtCase No: Binsi and another v. Sandeep ChandranCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 326The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment holding that there is no need to assess the mental status of applicants in a proceedings for maintenance.Justice A. Badharudheen allowed the Original Petition (Criminal) preferred by wife and minor daughter, and set aside the interim orders passed by the Family Court, Thalassery.[S.92 CPC] Kerala HC Dismisses Plea Seeking Leave To Sue Over Alleged Mismanagement Of Temple, Emphasises Adherence To Statutory RequirementsCase Title: Iruvaikonam Bhagavathi Temple & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 327The Kerala High Court has dismissed an application seeking leave to sue under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) concerning the administration of the Iruvaikonam Bhagavathi Temple in Thirupuram Village, Neyyattinkara. In his judgment, Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim underscored that leave under Section 92 CPC is not to be granted automatically and highlighted the importance of satisfying statutory requirements before initiating such a suit.The court emphasised that The main purpose of S.92 (1) is to give protection to public trusts of a charitable or religious nature from being subjected to harassment by suits being filed against them. Justice Abdul Hakhim clarified that before granting leave under Section 92 CPC, a court must be satisfied on several counts.No Specific Allegation Of Nuisance: High Court Closes Case Over Allegedly Defamatory Messages Against Kerala CM & Ministers In WhatsApp GroupCase Title: Dipin Vidhyadharan and Another v State of Kerala and AnotherCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 328The Kerala High Court closed a case of posting defamatory messages against the Chief Minister and other Ministers in the WhatsApp group of the...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 9 –15, 2025

Manju Elsa Isac

Tags