The High Court held that a psychiatric analysis of the wife is not required to prove restitution of conjugal rights in these proceedings. The Court viewed the petitions as an attempt to drag out the process and dismissed the original petition without awarding heavy costs.
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 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 11TH BHADRA, 1943
OP (FC) NO. 291 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26/3/21 & 17.2.20 IN IA 1/21 &
1541/19 IN P 180/2018 OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR,
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
JITH K.M, AGED 40 YEARS S/O. MOHANAN, KALLADATHIL HOUSE, PUTHEKADU, VETTUKADU P.O., THRISSUR-680014.
BY ADV K.R.ARUN KRISHNAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
SANDEEPA T.A, AGED 35 YEARS W/O. JITH K.M. AND D/O. YAMUNA, THAYYIL HOUSE, ANNANADU P.O., VADAMA VILLAGE, CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR-680309.
BY ADV FEBIN J.VELUKARAN
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(FC).No.291/2021
-:2:-
Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2021
A.Muhamed Mustaque,J.
This original petition was filed challenging an order dismissing an
application filed by the petitioner to refer the respondent to the medical
board for a psychiatric analysis. The petitioner is the husband and respondent is the wife. Thereafter, he filed another IA to review the earlier
order. That also was dismissed. Both orders are under challenge in this
original petition.
cruelty. In that petition, husband filed a counter claim for restitution of
conjugal rights. The Family Court observed that there are no grounds to
refer the respondent for psychiatric analysis by a medical board. It is to be
O.P.(FC).No.291/2021
-:3:-
noted that the petition for divorce was filed by the respondent alleging
cruelty as against the petitioner husband.
3. We do not know under what circumstances petitioner is
required a psychiatric analysis of the wife to prove the case of restitution of
conjugal rights. We find that the petitions have been filed only to drag the
proceedings. We would have dismissed this petition with heavy costs, but
we refrain from doing so.
The OP(FC) is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH
JUDGE
kp True copy
P.A. To Judge
O.P.(FC).No.291/2021
-:4:-
APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 291/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
| EXHIBIT | P1 TRUE COPY OF O.P.NO.180/2018 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR DATED 16.1.2018. |
|---|---|
| EXHIBIT | P2 TRUE COPY OF COUNTERCLAIM IN O.P.NO.180/2018 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR DATED 4.2.2019. |
| EXHIBIT | P3 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.1541/2019 IN O.P.NO.180/2018 DATED 14.3.2019 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR. |
| EXHIBIT | P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED BY THE PRINCIPAL COUNSELLOR DATED 14.5.2018. |
| EXHIBIT | P5 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 17.2.2020 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR IN I.A.1541/2019 IN O.P.NO.180/2018. |
| EXHIBIT | P6 A TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT, MENTAL HOSPITAL, THRISSUR DATED 8.1.2021. |
| EXHIBIT | P7 A TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.1/2021 IN I.A.NO.1541/2019 IN O.P.NO.180/2018 DATED 12.3.2021 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR. |
| EXHIBIT | P8 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 27.3.2021 IN I.A.NO.1/2021 IN O.P.NO.180/2018 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR. |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a psychiatric analysis of the wife is required for the petitioner to prove the claim for restitution of conjugal rights.
Whether the petitioner's applications to refer the wife for psychiatric analysis were filed in bad faith.
Whether the original petition challenging the dismissal of the medical board reference application should be allowed.
Jith K.M
Sandeepa T.A
A.Muhammed Mustaque
Kauser Edappagath Thursday
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
