The petitioner sought to set aside an order refusing to compel the respondent-wife to appear before a medical board in matrimonial proceedings. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that compulsion is not appropriate for settlement and no infirmity existed in the lower court's order.
The Original 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 ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 30TH POUSHA, 1944
O.P.(FC) NO. 39 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.12.2022 IN I.A.NO.11 OF 2022 IN O.P.NO.196 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR
PETITIONER:
RAMESH C.K.,
AGED 55 YEARS, S/O KUMARAN, CHERKKARA THANDAYAN HOUSE,
P.O. THRITHALOOR WEST, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
PIN – 680619.
BY ADVS. S.VINOD BHAT ANAGHA LAKSHMY RAMAN GREESHMA CHANDRIKA.R
RESPONDENT:
DHANYA
AGED 45 YEARS, D/O EDASSERY DHARMAPALAN, KAIPAMANGALAM VILLAGE, CHENTHRAPPINY DESOM, KARIPAMANGALAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN – 680681.
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 20.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
O.P.(FC) No.39 of 2023
JUDGMENT
P.G. Ajithkumar, J.
The respondent in O.P.No.196 of 2018 on the file of the Family Court, Thrissur has filed this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He seeks to set aside Ext.P9 order dated 14.12.2022 in I.A.No.11 of 2022 in O.P.No.196 of 2018.
3
O.P.(FC) No.39 of 2023
the presence of the children and make an endevour for an effective settlement. During the course of interaction in terms of the said order, the Family Court found that counselling of the parties was required and accordingly, the parties were referred to a clinical psychologist. Later, the petitioner was sent for assessment by a Medical Board. The Medical Board issued Ext.P5 evaluation report, wherein it was observed that being the issue related to a marital discord, presence of the wife was also required for a proper assessment. In the light of that report, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.9 of 2022 to refer the respondent-wife for evaluation by the Medical Board. That I.A. was allowed and the respondent was directed to appear before the Medical Board for evaluation. She, however, did not turn up. The petitioner also filed I.A.No.11 of 2022 seeking to keep the proceedings in O.P.No.196 of 2018 till a report of the Medical Board is received. As per the order dated 14.12.2022, the Family Court closed I.A.No.11 of 2022
4
O.P.(FC) No.39 of 2023
recording as follows:-
“Report of the Medical Board stating that the petitioner not appeared before the Medical Board is received. Hence the I.A. is closed.”
the respondent to appear before the Medical Board in terms of the directions contained in Ext.P6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent undertook before the Family Court to appear before the Medical Board for counselling and as such she is bound to honour the said undertaking. Since the Medical Board is of the opinion that unless the respondent-wife also is appeared, a proper evaluation would not be possible and in such circumstances, interference by this Court is highly essential. The endeavour of this Court as could be seen from Ext.P4 and the Family Court as is evident from Ext.P6 was to reach an amicable settlement between the parties. The learned counsel therefore would submit that the respondent shall have to be directed to appear before the Medical Board.
5
O.P.(FC) No.39 of 2023
6
O.P.(FC) No.39 of 2023
that Ext.P9 order suffers from any infirmity or illegality. Therefore, we are of the view that Ext.P9 order does not require interference.
Resultantly, this Original Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/- P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE
dkr
7
O.P.(FC) No.39 of 2023
APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 39/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE O.P. NUMBERED AS O.P. 196/2018 BEFORE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 0208-2019 IN I.A. 3491/2019 IN O.P. 196/2018 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2907-2021 IN I.A. 5/2021 IN O.P 196/2018 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 10-08-2021 IN O.P.(F.C.) 403/2021 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 2511-2021 SUBMITTED BY THE MEDICAL BOARD EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF AN ORDER DATED 03-082022 IN I.A. 9/2022 IN O.P. 196/2018 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BY GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL DATED 28-09-2022. EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE I.A. 11/2022 DATED 25-10-2022 IN O.P.196/2018 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1412-2022 IN I.A. 11/2022 IN O.P. 196/2018 ON THE FILES OF FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can under Article 227 compel a respondent to appear before a medical board when she has refused despite family court directions.
Whether the impugned order closing the application for medical evaluation suffers from infirmity requiring interference.
Whether a settlement in marital disputes can be enforced by compelling a party to participate in evaluation processes.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
RAMESH C.K.
DHANYA
ANIL K. NARENDRAN
P. G. AJITHKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
