Dismissed

T.C.Jayanth v. Sindhu C.P.

Kerala HC5 Mar 2019RP/1021/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Holding that no grounds exist for interfering with the Family Court order dismissing an application for psychiatric counselling or for reviewing its own judgment, this High Court of Kerala dismissed the review petition while retaining a liberty for the petitioner to take appropriate steps before the Family Court.

What did the court decide?

Review Petition dismissed. Liberty to take appropriate steps before the Family Court remains.

T.C.Jayanth Vs Sindhu C.P. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶6

TUESDAY ,THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 14TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶7

RP.No. 1021 of 2018 IN OP (FC). 600/2018

¶8

REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶9

T.C.JAYANTH AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.T.K.CHELLAPPAN, BHYRAVI NIVAS, A.S.ROAD, ARATTUVAZHI WARD, ALAPPUZHA NORTH P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688 007.

¶10

BY ADVS. DR.V.N.SANKARJEE SMT.ARYA BALACHANDRAN SRI.M.M.VINOD SMT.M.SUSEELA SMT.R.UDAYA JYOTHI SRI.S.SIDHARDHAN SRI.SUDHAKARAN V. SRI.V.N.MADHUSUDANAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶12

SINDHU C.P. AGED 46 YEARS D/O.PEETHAMBARAN, DARSHANAM, AYYAPPANKAVU, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM-682 018, (NOW RESIDING AT HOLLY GRACE ACADEMY HOSTEL, KURUVILASSERY P.O., VALIYAPARAMBU, MALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 735).

¶13

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

R.P. No.1021/2018

¶15

-2-

¶16

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J. &

¶17

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J.

¶18

R.P. No. 1021 OF 2018

¶19

DATED THIS THE 5^th DAY OF MARCH, 2019

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Abdul Rehim, J:

¶22

The petitioner is seeking review of the judgment in O.P. (FC) No.600/2018, dated 31-10-2018. Exhibit P6 order passed by the

¶23

Family Court, Ernakulam in I.A. No.2413/2018 in O.P. No.2360/2014 (mistakenly noted as O.P. No. 2360/2017 in the said order) was challenged in O.P. (FC) No.600/2018 before this court. Through Ext.P6, an application filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondent to undergo psychiatric counselling before the District Medical Board, was dismissed by the court below. It was found that the respondent had already undergone counselling with a private Doctor and the report would show that the respondent is perfectly fit. The court below also observed that petitioner has no case that the respondent is mentally ill or that the marriage was solemnized suppressing her illness. Finding that no purpose would be achieved by the interim application, the same was dismissed.

¶24

R.P. No.1021/2018

¶25

-3-

¶26

This court, while dealing with O.P (FC) No.600/2018, confirmed the order passed by the Family Court by observing that, even in another original petition filed by the petitioner seeking restitution of conjugal rights, O.P. No.705/2018, he has no case that the respondent is mentally unfit. He has not taken any steps under Order XXXII Rule 15 of Code of Civil Procedure, in that case also. This court observed that, in the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No.2413/2018 the petitioner himself has stated that the parties had attended a private counselling with Dr. Sindhu and that the report would indicate that the respondent is perfectly fit. Under such circumstances, while dismissing the original petition, this court found that, if the petitioner has got a definite case that the respondent is suffering from any mental illness or that she has got any mental infirmity, the petitioner will be at liberty to take appropriate steps before the Family Court under Order XXXII Rule 15 of Code of Civil Procedure. It was further observed that, during such course of enquiry under Order XXXII Rule 15 if the court below finds that a medical examination of the respondent is necessary, it can direct the respondent to undergo such examination.

¶27

The present review petition is filed on the basis that, despite an application for certified copy made before the Family

¶28

R.P. No.1021/2018

¶29

-4-

¶30

Court, no such certificate of Dr. Sindhu as mentioned in Ext.P6 order is made available and there is no such record. But it is a fact that the petitioner himself had admitted in the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No.2413/2018 that the parties have undergone counselling with Dr. Sindhu.

¶31

Under the above mentioned circumstances, we do not think that the order passed by the Family Court dismissing I.A. No.2413/2018 deserves interference from this court. More over, we do not think that there exist any circumstances warranting review of the judgment passed by this court, because no proper ground is set forth for seeking review of the judgment. However, the liberty already given to the petitioner through the judgment of this court will survive, which according to us will entail the petitioner to take appropriate steps before the Family Court.

¶32

Hence the Review Petition is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

C.K.ABDUL REHIM

JUDGE

Sd/-

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

JUDGE

AMG

R.P. No.1021/2018

-5-

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶44

ANNEXURE-I TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR CERTIFIED COPY C.A.NO.3315/2018 DATED 05.10.2018 TOGETHER WITH ENDORSEMENT.

¶45

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

¶46

NIL

¶47

AMG

T.C.Jayanth v. Sindhu C.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.C.Jayanth v. Sindhu C.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Susan Varghese Vs Sony Chandy

Meenu, Vs Prabhu

Janaki Vs C.a.Gopi

Mrf Limited, Vs State of Kerala

Mrf Limited, Vs State of Kerala

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs Additional Chief Secretary