Kerala High Court
Ganga vs Ajikumar on 18 January, 2021
OP (FC).No.53 OF 2019
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 28TH POUSHA, 1942
OP (FC).No.53 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP 631/2016 OF FAMILY COURT,
ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER/S:
GANGA,
AGED 29 YEARS
D/O. MURALI, C.M.C - 5,
NIKARTHIL VEEDU,
KOKKOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE,
CHERTHALA,
ALAPPUZHA PIN - 688 527
BY ADV. SRI.MANU ROY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 AJIKUMAR, AGED 38,
S/O KARTHIKEYAN,
CHANIYIL VEEDU,
KOKKOTHAMANGALM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA
BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
[email protected]
W/O KARTHIKEYAN CHANAYIL AGED 66 YEARS,
658 527.
2 SIBEESH BABU,
AGED 26 YEARS
S/O BABU, VARYATHU VELI,
EZHUPUNNA VILLAGE, PIN - 688 548.
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.1.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (FC).No.53 OF 2019
2
JUDGMENT
C.S.Dias,J.
The original petition is filed seeking to set aside Ext.P5
order passed by the Family Court, Alappuzha in O.P.
No.631/2016.
2. The concise case of the petitioner in the original
petition is that she is the 1st respondent in O.P. No.631/2016
(Ext.P1) of the Family Court, Alappuzha, which was filed by
the 1st respondent - her husband, seeking a decree of
divorce.
3. The petitioner has filed O.P. No.698/2016 (Ext.P2)
seeking a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. The 1 st
respondent has filed I.A 1428/2018 in O.P. (HMA) 631/2016
(Ext.P3) to record his evidence through video conferencing.
Although the petitioner filed Ext.P4 written objection to
Ext.P3, the Family Court by Ext.P5 order allowed the
application.
OP (FC).No.53 OF 2019
4. Assailing Ext.P5 order, the petitioner is before this
Court.
5. Although this Court on 5.2.2019 issued notice to
the respondent, no interim order has been granted.,
6. A larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Santhini v. Vijaya Venketesh [2018 1 SCC 1) has held that
there is no legal impediment in getting evidence recorded
through video conferencing. This Court has in a catena of
decisions gone on to hold that evidence get recorded
through video conferencing.
7. In the said circumstances, especially considering
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Santhini ( supra) and that this Court had declined to grant
any interim order against Ext.P5 order though the same was
filed on 22.1.2019 and it is more than two years since the
case is pending consideration, we do not find any ground to
allow the original petition at this distance of time. Perhaps
Ext.P1 proceeding may have been disposed of by the Family
OP (FC).No.53 OF 2019
Court.
In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the
case, we do not find any illegality or error in Ext.P5 order
passed by the Family Court, warranting interference by this
Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction as enshrined
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition fails and is hence dismissed.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/
C.S.DIAS
ma JUDGE
OP (FC).No.53 OF 2019
APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 53/2019
PETITIONER'S/ EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE PETITION FOR
DIVORCE DATED 28-09-2016.
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE O.P 698/18 DATED 31-
07-2018.
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF I.A 1428/2018 DATED 06-09-
2018.
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF OBJECTION IN I.A 1428/2018
DATED 15-10-2018.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A
1428/2018.
OP (FC).No.53 OF 2019
