Kerala High Court
Ganga vs Ajikumar on 18 January, 2021
OP (FC).No.531 OF 2018
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.531 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A. 1300/2018 IN OP 698/2018
OF FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER/S:
GANGA
AGED 29 YEARS
D/O. MURALI, C.M.C -5, NIKARTHIL VEEDU,
KOKKOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA,
ALAPPUZHA - 688 527.
BY ADV. SRI.MANU ROY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 AJIKUMAR
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. KARTHIKEYAN, C.M.C. - 8, CHANIYIL VEEDU,
KOKKOTHOMANGALAM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA
- 688 527.
2 SIBEESH BABU,
AGED 26, S/O.BABU, VARYATHU VELI, EZHUPUNNA
VILLAGE, PIN-688 548.
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP (FC).No.531 OF 2018
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 18th day of January 2021
C.S.Dias, J.
The original petition is filed to set aside Ext.P4
order passed by the Family Court, Alappuzha in O.P.
No.631/2018.
2. The concise case of the petitioner in the
original petition is that, she is the 1 st respondent in O.P.
(HMA) 631/2016 (Ext.P1), filed for a decree of divorce
and the petitioner in O.P. 698/2018 (Ext.P2) filed for a
decree of restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner
had filed I.A No.1300/2018 (Ext.P3) in Ext.P1 seeking
joint trial of Exts.P1 and P2. The Family Court, by
Ext.P4 order dated 10.8.2018 dismissed the
application on the ground that the application was
belated, as it was filed after the lapse of more than two
years after the institution of Ext.P1.
OP (FC).No.531 OF 2018
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned counsel appeariing for the
respondent.
4. It is an undisputed fact that the respondent
had filed Ext.P1 as early as on 28.9.2016. The
petitioner filed Ext.P2 only on 31.7.2018. Ext.P3
application seeking consolidation and joint trial of
Exts.P1 and P2 was filed only on 7.8.2018.
5. The Family Court, after considering the
pleadings and materials on record, particularly the
dates of institution of Exts.P1 and P2 and filing of
Ext.P3, came to the conclusion that Ext.P3 application
was belatedly filed in order to protract the
determination of Ext.P1. Consequently, Ext.P3
application was dismissed by Ext. P4 order.
6. Although notice was issued to the respondent
as early as on 28.9.2018, this Court declined any
interim relief to stay the trial of Ext.P1. Therefore, at
this distance of time, we do not find any ground for the
OP (FC).No.531 OF 2018
consolidation and joint trial of Exts.P1 and P2. Perhaps
Ext.P1 may have been disposed of.
7. Considering the above findings, we do not
find any error or illegality in the findings of the Family
Court in Ext.P4 order warranting interference in
exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The original petition fails and is accordingly
dismissed.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS
ma JUDGE
/True copy/
OP (FC).No.531 OF 2018
APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 531/2018
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE PETITION FOR DIVORCE DATED
28.09.2016.
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE O.P.698/2018 DATED
31.07.2018.
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF I.A.1300/2018 DATED 07.08.2018.
EXHIBIT P4 CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER IN
IA.1300/2018.
OP (FC).No.531 OF 2018
