The High Court declined to invoke superintendence jurisdiction under Article 227 to quash an order appointing the petitioner's father as guardian. It directed the Family Court to permit the petitioner to adduce evidence with the father's consent.
Petitioner permitted to adduce evidence requested by him jointly with his father.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2010 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1932
OP (FC).No. 1057 of 2010(R) --------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED / / IN IA 2174/2010 IN OP.865/2008 of FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER
BENNICHAN @ CHACKO, S/O.ANTONY, NEDUMCHIRAKKARI, KOKKAMANGALAM, CHERTHALA
BY ADV. SRI.JOBY CYRIAC
RESPONDENT(S):
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R. BASANT & K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------------O.P.(FC) No.1057 of 2010-R
Dated this the 10th day of December, 2010
JUDGMENT
Basant,J.
The contestants are spouses. The 1st respondent i.e., the wife of the petitioner has filed a petition before the Family Court, Alappuzha, claiming divorce on the alleged ground of mental unsoundness of the petitioner. There was a prayer that a guardian may be appointed. The court below by the impugned order appointed the petitioner's father as his guardian. The court below did, of course, look into certain materials that were available. The court below did not enter a positive finding that the petitioner is unable to protect his interests in the litigation. Notwithstanding that, the petitioner's father was appointed as his guardian - it would appear, by way of abundant caution.
O.P.(FC) No.1057 of 2010 -: 2 :-
procedure adopted by the court below is not correct. The petitioner does not need a guardian. His father need not have been appointed as his guardian. The petitioner is himself conducting his case and the petitioner's apprehension is that the tentative finding taken under the impugned Ext.P5 order may weigh with the court when it ultimately disposes of O.P.(Divorce) No.865/08. The learned counsel admits that there is no conflict of interests between the petitioner and his father. He has no grievance that the appointment of the petitioner's father as guardian would in any way obstruct or impede the proper conduct of the case by the petitioner.
O.P.(FC) No.1057 of 2010 -: 3 :-
requested by him jointly with his father would serve the interests of the petitioner now, it is submitted.
Sd/-
R. BASANT (Judge)
Sd/-
K. SURENDRA MOHAN (Judge)
Nan/ //true copy//
P.S. to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should invoke its superintendence jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to set aside the Family Court order appointing the petitioner's father as guardian.
Whether the petitioner can be permitted to adduce evidence in the underlying divorce proceedings despite the appointment of his father as guardian.
BENNICHAN @ CHACKO
K.X.MARY @ USHA
ANTONY
R. BASANT
K. SURENDRA MOHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
