Allowed

Skaria K.C. @ Chacko Skaria v. Sofi Skaria

Kerala HC17 Nov 2012OP (FC)/3864/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a Family Court order that declined a request for a medical board for psychological counselling. The court held the order was not illegal, perverse, or devoid of jurisdiction, dismissed the challenge, but noted the petitioner could raise illegality in the appeal against the final money-recovery decree.

What did the court decide?

Challenge to the Family Court order refusing psychological counselling was held legally unsustainable and turned down, with a note on appeal grounds.

Skaria K.C. @ Chacko Skaria Vs Sofi Skaria — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶4

SATURDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/26TH KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

OP (FC).No. 3864 of 2012 (R) ---------------------------OP.2546/2001 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SKARIA K.C. @ CHACKO SKARIA, AGED 44 YEARS S/O.CHACKO, KATTAPURATH HOUSE, PANGODE P.O. VADAVUKODU (VIA), ERNAKULAM DIST., PIN-682310.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SMT.T.A.LUXY

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

SOFI SKARIA, AGED 47 YEARS W/O. SKARIA K.C., 36/2202, NEAR AJ HALL KALOOR, COCHIN-17.

¶11

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-112012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

O.P.(FC) 3864/2012

¶13

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶14

EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.(DIVORCE) 997/00 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE DIAGNOSIS OF THE BOTH THE PARTIES.

¶16

EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE CRIME NO. 2459/11 WAS REGISTERED BY E.T.NORTH POLICE STATION. EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE M C NO. 41/2011 BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (ECONOMICAL OFFENCES).

¶17

EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.NO. 2546/11 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶18

EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF O.P.NO. 182/12 PENDING BEFORE THE MUVATTUPUZHA FAMILY COURT.

¶19

EXHIBIT P7- A TRUE COPY OF O.P. 817/12 PENDING BEFORE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶20

EXHIBIT P8- TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.NO. 1706/12 IN OP.NO. 3546/11 BEFORE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶21

EXHIBIT P9- TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION PREFERRED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXHIBIT P10- TRUE COPY OF THE KOOTATTUKULAM POLICE HAD REGISTERED CRIME NO. 16/12.

¶23

EXHIBIT P11- TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.NO. 1621/12 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT ERNAKULAM.

¶24

EXHIBIT P12- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17-09-2012 IN I.A.NO. 1706/12 IN OP NO. 2546/11 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶25

EXHIBIT P13- TRUE COPY OF THE MARRIAGE CANCELLATION DOCUMENT DT. 05-041988.

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL

¶27

/TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE.

¶28

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH JJ.

¶29

O.P.(FC) . NO. 3864 OF 2012

¶30

Dated this the 17^th day of November, 2012

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

Pius C.Kuriakose,J

¶33

Under challenge in this original petition filed under Article 227 by the petitioner, who is the respondent in O.P.No.2546/2001 on the files of the Family Court, Ernakulam for recovery of money and ornaments, is Ext.P12 order passed by that Family Court. Ext.P12 is passed by the Family Court on I.A. NO.1706/2012 filed by the petitioner. The prayer in the above I.A. was that the parties be referred to a Medical Board for psychological counselling. The learned Family Court by the impugned order found that there is no warrant for referring the parties to psychological counselling.

¶34

2.The main ground raised by the petitioner is that Ext.P2

¶35

O.P.(FC) No. 3864 /2012 2

¶36

was a principal document relied on by the petitioner in support of I.A.No.1706/2012 and the learned Judge of the Family Court did not even look into Ext.P2. We remind ourselves immediately of the well delineated contours of our jurisdiction under Article 227. Jurisdiction under Article 227 is visitorial in nature and will be invoked only very sparingly. When Ext.P12 is gauged by the parameters that are applicable to the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, we are convinced that there is no warrant at all for the exercise of the above jurisdiction. Ext.P12 cannot said to be per se illegal in the sense that it was passed without jurisdiction or that it offends clear provision of law either statutory or settled. Ext.P12 cannot be said to be a perverse order in the sense that such an order will not be authored by anybody having reasonable learning and training in law.

¶37

We turn down the challenge against Ext.P12, however observing that if for any reason the final decision in the original petition (O.P. NO.2546/2001) comes to be against the petitioner, it is open to the petitioner to urge in the appeal, which he may have to file against that decision, as a ground that Ext.P12 is

¶38

O.P.(FC) No. 3864 /2012

¶39

¶40

an illegal order which should not have been passed by the Family

¶41

Court.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶46

Dpk

¶47

/True copy/ P.A to Judge.

¶48

O.P.(FC) No. 3864 /2012 4

Skaria K.C. @ Chacko Skaria v. Sofi Skaria

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Skaria K.C. @ Chacko Skaria v. Sofi Skaria

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.S.Babu Vs T.v.Nisha

Binitha Harindran Vs Harindran

Philipose Alexander Vs Authorised Officer

Mathew Martin Vs Seena a.

Staby Vs Jiby

Reji Sebastian Vs Thomas @ Vinod