Saheer Musthafa vs Queen Omen Jith

Kerala High Court

Saheer Musthafa vs Queen Omen Jith on 23 May, 2024

Author: Raja Vijayaraghavan

Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
     THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
                             &
           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
  THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946
                  OP (FC) NO. 325 OF 2024

 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.02.2024 IN OP NO.427 OF 2018 OF
                    FAMILY COURT, TIRUR

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

         SAHEER MUSTHAFA
         AGED 34 YEARS
         S/O MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA, MURTHAYA PALLATH,
         KANJIRAPPURAM, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678591

         BY ADVS.
         ESM.KABEER
         C.SHEEBA


RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

         QUEEN OMEN JITH
         D/O ELAYEDATH MULLATHAYIL, UMMAR, DRUZHA CELL,
         MARANCHERY AMSOM DESOM, MARACHERRY P.O PONNANI
         TALUK, MALAPPURAM ,REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY
         HOLDER, FATHER UMMAR, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O MOOSAHAJI,
         ELAYEDATH MULLATHAYIL HOUSE, MARACHERRY P.O PONNANI
         TALUK, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679581

     THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 OP(FC) No.325 of 2024
                                                2




                                         JUDGMENT

Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.

The petitioner is the respondent in O.P. No. 427 of 2018 on the file of the Family Court, Tirur. The aforesaid petition was filed by his wife seeking return of gold ornaments and certain other items alleged to be entrusted with the petitioner. This petition is filed challenging the order passed in I.A. No. 4 of 2024 in O.P No. 427 of 2018, by which the application filed by the respondent wife seeking to reopen the evidence for the production of certain documents was allowed on payment of cost.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the evidence was closed about 3 months back. The documents which are now produced have been procured by the respondent for the purpose of using it against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, if the evidence case is reopened and a chance is granted to adduce evidence, serious prejudice would be caused.

3. The Family Court by the impugned order, allowed the petition on payment of cost of Rs.500/-.

4. Sri. Muhammed Kabeer E.S, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Family Court cannot be sustained.

3

5. We have considered the submissions advanced.

6. We find that after the closure of the evidence of PW1, she was able to obtain certain invoices/bills, the genuineness of which is doubted by the petitioner. We are of the view that when the respondent proposes to mark the documents in evidence, the petitioner can very well raise the contention with regard to the genuineness of the documents. The scope and ambit of the power and jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 227 was again explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd.1 It was held that the High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardships or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or Tribunals. The power under Article 227 is to be exercised sparingly in appropriate cases like when there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or Tribunal has come to and that it is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. 1 JT 2001 (7) SC 657 OP(FC) No.325 of 2024 4

7. We are satisfied that the order passed by the Family Court is reasonable and do not warrant any interference.

This petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE Sd/-

P.M.MANOJ JUDGE APM/23/05/2024 OP(FC) No.325 of 2024 5 APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 325/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IA NO. 4/2024 IN OP NO. 427/2018 OF THE FAMILY COURT, TIRUR Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE REVISION PETITIONER DATED 03-02-2024 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BILL PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT DATED 03-08-2010 Exhibit P3(a) RUE COPY OF THE BILL PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT DATED 22-11-2010 Exhibit P3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE BILL PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT DATED 19-09- 2010 Exhibit P3(c) TRUE COPY OF THE BILL PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT DATED 17-05-2012 Exhibit P3(d) TRUE COPY OF THE BILL PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT DATED,08-07-2012 Exhibit P3(e) TRUE COPY OF THE BILL PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT DATED 30-10-2011