The Kerala High Court entertained a writ petition under Article 227 seeking to quash the Family Court order refusing a joint trial of divorce, restitution of conjugal rights, and maintenance petitions. The Bench held that no ground for interference under Article 227 was made out.
None. The writ petition was dismissed.
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 K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/18TH MAGHA 1933
OPFC.No. 4271 of 2011 (R)
AGAINST IA.5255/11 IN OP.1478/2008 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER:
SHINCY, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.SUBHASAN, MULANGAYIL HOUSE CHERAI.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.ANIL KUMAR SREEDHARAN
RESPONDENT:
1 VINOD.M.R., S/O.RAGHUNANDANAN, MARAMVEETTIL HOUSE THOPPUMPADY.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.682 005.
BY SMT.K.GIRIJA
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
| EXT.P1 | : | COPY OF PETITION IN O.P.1857/11 PENDING BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT ERNAKULAM. |
|---|---|---|
| EXT.P2 | : | COPY OF PETITION IN M.C.296/11 PENDING BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT ERNAKULAM. |
| EXT.P3 | : | COPY OF JOINT TRIAL APPLICATION I.A.5255/11 IN OP.1478/08 |
| EXT.P4 | : | COPY OF APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT FILED BEFORE THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER. |
| EXT.P5 | : | TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.25.11.11 DISMISSING JOINT TRIAL APPLICATION. |
| EXT.P6 | : | COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER ON 20.12.11 |
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
// TRUE COPY //
K.M. JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ.,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(F.C.) No.4271 OF 2011 R
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 7th day of February, 2012
JUDGMENT
K.M. Joseph J.,
The petitioner in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to quash Ext.P5 and to allow Ext.P3, joint trial application.
also a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The Family
Court has also ordered joint trial of these petitions. Apart from the same, Ext.P1 has been filed by the wife/petitioner seeking return of gold ornaments, articles and money from the respondents therein. She has also filed Ext.P2, which is a M.C. for maintenance. She filed Ext.P3 petition praying that all the cases may be tried together.
It is the said petition, which has been dismissed by Ext.P5 order.
O.P.(F.C.) No.4271 OF 2011
:2:
Following is the reasoning given by the Family Court:
“Taken up along with O.P. Objection already filed. Heard. Trial has commenced in the O.P. 2008. When as even appearance of respondents not over in the M.C. filed in 2011. Appropriate forum also different. Hence the prayer for joint trial is disallowed.”
impressed by the arguments that all the cases should be tried together. We must most importantly remind ourselves the limits of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. We do not think that any ground available for interference under Article
227 of the Constitution of India is made out.
Accordingly we dismiss the O.P.(F.C.)
Sd/-
K.M. JOSEPH, (JUDGE)
Sd/-
M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE)
dl/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can justify a joint trial of a divorce petition, restitution of conjugal rights, maintenance application, and a return of wealth petition.
Whether the High Court has the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to quash the Family Court's order dismissing the joint trial application.
Shincy
Vinod.M.R.
K.M.Joseph
M.L.Joseph Francis
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
