Dismissed
Dedhila Devadathan v. v.Krishnan
Kerala HCOP (FC)/68/2014
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE…
What the court decided
AI extract
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 HARUN-UL-RASHID & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
MONDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/21ST MAGHA, 1935
OP (FC).No. 68 of 2014 (R)
I.A. NO.310/2014 IN O.P. NO.675/2011 OF FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM.
PETITIONER:-
DEDHILA DEVADATHAN, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O.LAILA BHASKARAN, R/AT DEVABHAVANAM, ASRAMON SOUTH CHERRY, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK.
BY ADVS.SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL), SMT.C.VIJAYAKUMARI.
RESPONDENT:-:
V. KRISHNAN, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.LATE VASUDEVAN, PAZHAVILA VEEDU, VADAKKEVILA CHERRY, VADAKKEVILA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK.
BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.RAJA, SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR.
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
OP (FC).No. 68 of 2014 (R)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-
EXT.R1A COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15/11/2012 IN OP(FC) NO.2718/2012 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
rs.
HARUN-UL-RASHID, & ALEXANDER THOMAS, JJ.
O.P.(F.C) No. 68 of 2014
Dated this the 10th day of February 2014.
JUDGMENT
HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.
The interim order in I.A. No. 310/2014 in O.P.No. 675/2011 dated 5.2.2014 on the file of the Family Court, Kollam is under challenge. Petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Their marriage was solemnised on 6.11.2005 according to Hindu rites and customs. Two female children were born out of their wedlock aged 7 years and 4 years respectively.
O.P.(F.C) No. 68/2014
: 2 :
rights and getting the custody of the two female children. After completing the formalities, the court below decided to order joint trial of both cases. The case was posted for trial for so many dates. PW1 to 4 were examined during this period of one year. Petitioner's evidence was closed on 24.1.2014. and the respondent was examined as RW1 on 3.2.2014. Thereafter the case was posted for final hearing on 5.2.2014.
permission to examine the mother of the respondent as one of her witnesses. The learned Judge observed in the order, copy of which is marked as Ext.P6 that the evidence from both sides are already closed and posted for final hearing. It is stated that more than ample time is given to the petitioner to adduce evidence and after closing her evidence, the respondent was examined and his evidence also closed. Learned Judge took the view that there is no good reason to allow the application for reopening the evidence and permit the petitioner to examine the witness who was not examined during the period aforementioned. The fact that the case was stand for trial on so many occasions would show that there is no bonafides in filing the application at this distance of time. Petitioner could have examined any of the
O.P.(F.C) No. 68/2014
: 3 :
witnesses by summoning them. The court below found that more
than ample time is given to the petitioner to adduce evidence.
Accordingly, the O.P.(F.C) stand dismissed.
Sd/-
HARUN-UL-RASHID
Judge.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS Judge.
AL/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether interim order refusing permission to examine additional witness can be set aside?
Whether the application lacks bonafides and sustainable grounds for interference?
DEDHILA DEVADATHAN
V. KRISHNAN
HARUN-UL-RASHID
ALEXANDER THOMAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court