Petitioner challenged an order in a divorce petition pending before the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking expeditious disposal. The Court noted a backlog of over 5,000 cases and directed dismissal of the review petition.
Original petition 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 ANTONY DOMINIC
& THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013/21ST SRAVANA, 1935
OP (FC).No. 2484 of 2013 (R)
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 945/2011 of FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM
PETITIONER:
SUZANNA VARGHESE, AGED 26 YEARS D/O DR. K.K. VBARGHESE, KOCHAKKAN HOUSE, MANGANAM VIJAYAPURAM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
BY ADVS.SRI.SHAMMI VIJAYAN
SMT.NITHYA PRATHAPAN
RESPONDENT:
AVINASH V PHILOP, AGED 29 YEARS S/O LATE PHILIP VARGHESE, SURAVI T.C NO 4/1845 KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (FC).No. 2484 of 2013 (R) -----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF OP NO 945/2011 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE WRITTEN OBJECTION FILED BY THER ESPONDENT IN OP 945/2011 OF THE FAMILY COURT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF OP 943/2011 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
------------------------Nil
//true copy//
PS TO JUDGE
lgk
ANTONY DOMINIC & P.D.RAJAN, JJ
......................................... O.P(FC)No.2484 of 2013 ......................................... Dated 12th August, 2013
JUDGMENT
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
Petitioner seeks an expeditious disposal of O.P.No.945 of 2011 on the file of Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. On filing of this O.P, this court, by order dated 18.7.2013, called for a report from Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Accordingly report dated 26.7.2013 has been received, which reads thus:-
“ As per the reference 2nd cited, I am submitting herewith the following remarks for kind consideration:-
The OP is one filed for nullifying the marriage or in the alternative for divorce u/s 10(X), 18 and 19 of the Indian Divorce Act. The OP was filed on 20/06/2011. Respondents 1 and 2 appeared on 21/12/2011 and after chamber discussion and counselling the case was posted for objection to 03/12/2012. On 03/12/2012, the case was posted for written statement with no further time order and adjourned to 11/02/2013. On 11/02/2013, petitioner present, counter petitioner absent and written statement filed and adjourned to 07/05/2013. From 1st week of May onwards
Op(fc)2484/2013
2
regular sitting was not conducted since permanent judge was not posted. Thus the case was adjourned on notification twice and now the case is posted to 03/08/2013. The case has to be referred for a mediation for which appearance of parties has to be ordered on 03/08/2013. Time allowed for mediation be 90 days, the only possibility for evidence being recorded is by the end of 2013.
The kind attention is also invited about the pendency of more than 5000 cases at present of which cases pending more than 5 years would come to 274. Thus priority has to be given to old cases. Even then the case will be expedited as early as possible. The matter is accordingly reported for further orders”.
posted to 3.8.2013 for reference to mediation. If the matter has been referred for mediation and if parties did not settle the OP, necessarily Family Court will have to proceed to record evidence.
Op(fc)2484/2013
3
disposal of the OP is concerned, report reveals that more than 5000 cases are pending before the Family Court and that 274 cases are more than 5 years old. In such circumstances, since the OP filed by the petitioner is comparatively a new one, this court will not be justified in directing its disposal giving it an overriding preference.
Original petition is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
P.D.RAJAN, JUDGE
lgk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a pending divorce petition filed under the Indian Divorce Act should be disposed of expeditiously despite a massive backlog at the Family Court.
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to direct the disposal of a case pending in the subordinate Family Court at the instance of a review petition.
SUZANNA VARGHESE
AVINASH V PHILOP
ANTONY DOMINIC
P.D.RAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
