The Kerala High Court on Monday dismissed a petition filed by a 26-year-old woman from Kasaragod, holding that she had chosen the wrong legal route. The bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha clarified that the petitioner should have filed an appeal under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) instead of invoking the court’s writ jurisdiction.
Background
The case originated from a matrimonial dispute pending before the Family Court in Kasaragod. The petitioner, Shahabeen Hameed, had filed Original Petition No. 141/2024 seeking certain family-related reliefs. However, her petition was dismissed.
Following that setback, she moved the Family Court again with an application to restore the petition under Order IX Rule 9 of the CPC. Since this application was delayed by 118 days, she also sought condonation of delay. Unfortunately for her, both the restoration plea and the delay-condonation request were turned down by the Family Court in June 2025.
Determined to challenge the order, she approached the High Court through an Original Petition (Family Court) - OP(FC) No. 621 of 2025.
Court's Observations
When the matter came up for admission on October 27, 2025, the bench made its position clear early in the hearing. The judges noted that under Order XLIII Rule 1(c) of the CPC, an appeal is the appropriate remedy against an order rejecting an application for restoration of a dismissed case.
The bench observed, "We are of the firm view that within the rigour of Order XLIII Rule 1(c), only an appeal will lie. We see no reason to entertain an Original Petition when a statutory alternative exists."
The Court also mentioned that the Registry had earlier objected to numbering the case for this very reason, but the petition was listed after counsel’s assurance that he would justify its maintainability.
However, after hearing the arguments, the bench found no legal ground to deviate from the CPC’s prescribed procedure.
Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked when a “clear and effective alternative remedy” is available in law.
At the same time, the judges left the door open for the petitioner to take proper legal recourse.
"The dismissal is without prejudice to her right to approach the Court again in terms of law," the bench concluded.
The order reinforces a consistent judicial position: litigants must follow the statutory appeal mechanism before knocking on the constitutional court’s door.
Case Title: Shahabeen Hameed vs Muhammed Ajnas A.B
Case Number: O.P (FC) No. 621 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 27 October 2025