Dismissed¶40

Neeraj.M v. Suranya. K. Mohan

Kerala HC4 Apr 2025OP (FC)/202/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala HC, OP(FC) 202/2025, decided 04.04.2025: challenge to Family Court, Kalpetta order refusing psychologist-assisted counselling in divorce petition dismissed; psychological analysis without consent held impermissible; wife's unequivocal objection to reunion upheld; liberties of parties and rights of Family Court reserved.

What did the court decide?

The Court could not accept the petitioner's submissions because the respondent-wife's Ext.P4 objections made it unequivocally clear that there is no possibility of any reunion between the parties, and this had been recorded in Ext.P5 after the learned Family Court interacted with the respondent. ¶30

Neeraj.M Vs Suranya. K. Mohan — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether Ext.P5 order of the Family Court, Kalpetta dismissing I.A.No.14/2025 (which sought requisition of a Psychologist for counselling) should be set aside and the Family Court directed to reconsider the I.A. so as to enable the parties to talk to each other and make reunion possible. +1 more

¶29

Court's answer

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The question whether a person can be subjected to a psychological analysis against his/her consent has already been considered by this Court several times and held to the negative; the Court failed to understand how a respondent in an Original Petition can seek that the petitioner be subjected to a medical/psychological analysis, ostensibly as part of counselling.

¶32

Key takeaways

The Statutes covering the area contain specific forensic stipulations for all requirements, including counselling, and the Court expressed little doubt that the learned Family Court will, or has, completed all such requirements as per law.obiter¶37
Finding nothing in error in Ext.P5, the Court dismissed the Original Petition, leaving every liberty in law open to the parties and every right reserved to the learned Family Court when the Original Petition is finally decided.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Kerala (Devan Ramachandran, J.) dismisses OP(FC) No. 202 of 2025 challenging Ext.P5 order dated 18.03.2025 of the Family Court, Kalpetta, which had rejected the petitioner-husband's I.A.No.14/2025 in OP(Div)No.638/2022 seeking requisition of a Psychologist for counselling. The Court held that the respondent-wife's Ext.P4 objections made it unequivocally clear there was no possibility of reunion, as recorded in Ext.P5 after the Family Court interacted with her; further, the question whether a person can be subjected to psychological analysis without consent has been held to the negative by this Court, and the governing Statutes contain specific forensic stipulations including for counselling. Every liberty in law left open to the parties and every right reserved to the Family Court at final hearing.

¶1

2025:KER:29090

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶5

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA

¶7

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1947
OP (FC) NO. 202 OF 2025

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.03.2025 IN I.A.14/2025 IN OP(DIV)
NO.638 OF 2022 OF FAMILY COURT, KALPETTA

¶9

PETITIONER/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶10

NEERAJ.M., AGED 38 YEARS, S/O. A.M. KRISHNAN,
SAROJINI NIVAS, VELLIPARAMB, KUTTIKATTOOR
VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673008

¶11

BY ADVS.
HEMALATHA
BINU GEORGE
AVANI P.S.

¶12

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

¶13

SURANYA. K. MOHAN, D/O. MOHANANDAS, NOW
RESIDING AT DEVIPADMAM, MUTTIL. P.O,
VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYNAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 673122

¶14

THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶15

2025:KER:29090

OP(FC) 202/25

JUDGMENT

Devan Ramachandran, J.

¶20

The petitioner c hallenges Ext.P5 order of the learned Family Court, Kalpetta, which has dismissed I.A.No.14/2025 filed by him, in OP(Div)No.638/2022.

¶21

2 . The above said Original Petition has been filed by the respondent-wife seeking divorce from the petitioner; and in it, he filed the afore application, seeking that the services of a Psychologist be requisitioned for the purpose of counselling the parties. The learned

¶22

Court, however, dismissed the said application through Ext.P5 order, stating that the course requested is unnecessary.

¶23

3 . Smt.Hemalatha – learned counsel for the petitioner ,

¶24

conceded that, though her client has asked for the service of a Psychologist, what he really wanted was an opportunity for the parties to talk to each other, which can be possible only through a proper

¶25

Forum. She added that her client has been constrained to do so because, the respondent has refused to even talk to him whenever the parties were called for counselling and that this is manifest from the

¶26

¶27

2025:KER:29090

¶28

OP(FC) 202/25

¶29

proceedings on record. She thus prayed that Ext.P5 be set aside and the learned Family Court be directed to reconsider the I.A., thus to allow the parties to talk to each other, either through counselling or such other methods, so that their reunion may be possible.

¶30

4 . We are afraid that we cannot find favour with the afore submissions of Smt.Hemalatha because, we notice that Ext.P4 objections have been filed by the respondent-wife, wherein, she has made it unequivocally clear that there is no possibility of any reunion between the parties. In fact, this has been so recorded in Ext.P5 order also and

¶31

we see that this has been done, after the learned Court had interacted with the respondent.

¶32

5 . That being said, the question whether a person can be subjected to a psychological analysis against his/her consent, has already been considered by this Court several times in the past and held to the negative. We fail to understand how the respondent in an

¶33

Original Petition can seek that the petitioner be subjected to a medical/psychological analysis, and that too, ostensibly as part of counselling. This is more so, when the Statutes covering the area has

¶34

OP(FC) 202/25

¶35

¶36

2025:KER:29090

¶37

specific forensic stipulations for all requirements, including counselling.

¶38

We have little doubt that the learned Family Court will, or has completed all such as per law.

¶39

6 . In such view, we cannot find anything in error in Ext.P 5.

¶40

We, therefore, dismiss this Original Petition; however, leaving

¶41

every liberty in law open to the parties and every right reserved to the

¶42

learned Family Court, when the Original Petition is finally decided.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

Sd/-

M.B. SNEHALATHA

JUDGE

2025:KER:29090

¶51

OP(FC) 202/25

¶52

¶53

APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 202/2025

¶54

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶55

`Exhibit P1`	`A TRUE COPY` `638/2022 OF`	`OF PET` `FAMILY`	`ITION IN OP(D). NO.` `COURT, KALPETTA`
`Exhibit P2`	`A TRUE COPY` `638/2022 OF`	`OF OBJ` `FAMILY`	`ECTION IN OP(D). NO.` `COURT, KALPETTA`
`Exhibit P3`	`A TRUE COPY` `638/2022 OF`	`OF IA.` `FAMILY`	`NO. 14/2025 IN OP. NO.` `COURT, KALPETTA`
`Exhibit P4`	`A TRUE COPY` `14/2025 IN O` `COURT, KALPE`	`OF OBJ` `P. NO.` `TTA`	`ECTION IN IA. NO.` `638/2022 OF FAMILY`
`Exhibit P5`	`A TRUE COPY` `IA. NO. 14/2` `FAMILY COURT`	`OF ORD` `025 IN` `, KALP`	`ER DATED 18.03.2025 IN` `OP. NO. 638/2022 OF` `ETTA`

Neeraj.M v. Suranya. K. Mohan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj.M v. Suranya. K. Mohan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepthi Ambali Vs Nishanth.M

Rakhi Rajagopal Vs Madhu.v

Darvin Vs Kerala State

Moithutty Vs Sajitha

Dr.Ahana S Vs Ajmal

Vinu Varghese Vs Dyna Merry Aniyan