Dismissed

V.Sunil v. Anitha Pillai

Kerala HC12 Jan 2009WP(C)/425/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed writ petitions challenging an order dismissing an application for medical examination on the grounds of delay. The Court held that in matrimonial disputes, the petitioner must not be denied opportunity to prove his case. The filing period was extended by two months to examine witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; time limit for disposal extended by two months; petitioner permitted to examine witnesses.

V.Sunil Vs Anitha Pillai — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶6

MONDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2009 / 22ND POUSHA 1930

¶7

WP(C).No. 425 OF 2009(S)

¶8

-----------------------OPG&W.446/2005 OF FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM

¶9

PETITIONER:

¶10

V.SUNIL, ADVOCATE, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. VISWANATHA PANICKER, KUNNATHU HOUSE, VADAKKUMTHALA EAST P.O., KAARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN 690 536,.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ SRI.ANOOP JOSEPH SRI.ABHILASH AKBAR SRI.T.B.SIVAPRASAD SRI.C.S.MANU

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

ANITHA PILLAI, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O. K.P. GOPINAHTA PILLAI, KALPAKAM, PADA SOUTH, KARUNAGAPPALY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN 690 518,

¶14

RESHMI PILLAI, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O. K.P. GOPINATHA PILLAI, KALPAKAM, PADA SOUTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN 690 518.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/01/2009, ALONG WITH W .P.(C) 426/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

P.R. RAMAN & C.T.RAVI KUMAR, JJ.

¶17

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶18

W.P.(C) NOS. 425 & 426 OF 2009

¶19

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶20

DATED THIS, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2009.

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

Raman, J.

¶23

Ext.P6 order produced is sought to be quashed. There are two proceedings pending before the Family Court - one is an original petition filed by the mother in law of the writ petitioner under the Guardian & Wards Act (O.P. (G&W) 446/2005) for appointment of a guardian and the other (O.P. (HMA) 364/2005) is for a decree of divorce filed by his wife.

¶24

The writ petitioner is the respondent in both the above cases. He filed I.A. 2991 ad 2990 respectively in the two matters under Section 45 of the Evidence Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to refer him to a competent doctor for examination and to ascertain as to whether he is a dipsomaniac or not. Since the prayer made in both the interlocutory applications were same, a common order was passed but since there were two proceedings, two writ petitions are filed. As such the point to be considered in both these writ petitions is one and the same.

¶25

We had issued notice before admission and the respondents have

¶26

W.P.(C) NOS. 425 & 426/2009 :2:

¶27

entered appearance. Heard both sides.

¶28

The specific case of the petitioner's wife is that the petitioner is a dipsomaniac. Evidence in that regard is being adduced. However, in the course of evidence of the petitioner in the main matter, ie. is at the instance of the wife, petitioner herein filed the present petition. Finding that such a petition having been filed at a belated stage, the court below dismissed the same. In that regard, it was pointed out that there was an earlier proceeding before this Court as W.P.(C) 19361/2008 in which the Family Court was directed to dispose of the matter within a period of five months. In such circumstances, the court below found that by filing the application, the petitioner is trying to protract the matter and thereby the time limit fixed by this Court will be exceeded which cannot be permitted to be done. After the impugned order was passed, petitioner is stated to have produced a medical certificate and witness list containing the names of two doctors whom he propose to examine on his side and he is satisfied that such an opportunity if given to him will be sufficient to protect his interest.

¶29

Having heard both sides and considering the fact that this is a matrimonial dispute and the allegation against the petitioner is that he is a dipsomaniac, before arriving at a finding there need not be denial of any opportunity being given to the petitioner to prove otherwise, though this

¶30

W.P.(C) NOS. 425 & 426/2009 :3:

¶31

Court has fixed a time limit for disposal of the matter which would expire on 24.1.2009.

¶32

In the above circumstances, we dismiss these writ petitions; however, without prejudice to the petitioner examining the witness cited by him and also to mark the certificate through a competent witness in accordance with law. However, we direct that the entire proceeding shall be completed within a time limit. The period granted by this Court, in such circumstances and in view of the subsequent development, is extended by another two months.

¶33

P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE)

¶34

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, (JUDGE)

¶35

knc/-

V.Sunil v. Anitha Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Sunil v. Anitha Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Jacob Reginald and Others Vs the Principal Secretary and Others

Varangode Anti Bar Action Committee Vs Commissioner of Excise

Smt.Sasikala Vs Smt.Girija Devi D.S.