Kerala High Court
Ayisha.N vs Al Anaf Riswi Khan on 19 January, 2021
1
OP (FC).No.189 OF 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 29TH POUSHA, 1942
OP (FC).No.189 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN I.A.1 OF 2020 IN OP(DMM) 1083/2017
OF FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM
PETITIONER/S:
AYISHA.N, AGED 29 YEARS
D/O.S.M.NOUSHAD, ALI NIVAS,28-SARADHI NAGAR
TKMC P.O, KARIKKODE, MANGAD VILLAGE
KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT -691 005
BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
RESPONDENT/S:
AL ANAF RISWI KHAN, S/O.M.N.K BASEER, MNK BUNGLOW
(4/101 A2/AB), ELANTHAYADI RAFEAL STREET
TAMILNADU, 629 003.
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
OP (FC).No.189 OF 2020
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & C.S.DIAS, JJ.
======================
OP(FC)No. 189 of 2020
======================
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2021.
JUDGMENT
C.S.DIAS , J.
The original petition is filed to set aside Ext P5
order and to direct the Family Court, Kollam to conduct
the joint trial of OP (DMM) 1083/2017 (Ext P1), OP
605/2017 (Ext P2), OP(G&W) 316/2017(Ext P3) and MC
143/2017 (Ext P4).
2. The concise case of the petitioner is that she is
the wife of the respondent. She has filed Ext P1 seeking
a decree of divorce and Ext P2 against the respondent
and his parents, seeking a decree for realisation of
money. The respondent has filed Ext P3 seeking
permanent custody of the child born in the wedlock of
the couple. The petitioner has also filed Ext P4, seeking
an order of maintenance herself and child. Although the
petitioner had filed an application seeking the joint trial
OP (FC).No.189 OF 2020
of Exts P1 to P4, the Family Court by the impugned
order (Ext P5) dismissed the application on the ground
that this Court had by judgment dated 20.11.2019 in
OP(FC) 672/20219 (Ext P6) directed the Family Court
to dispose of Ext P1 within six months from the date of
judgment. In the said circumstances, if the Family
Court consolidates and jointly tries Exts P1 to P4, the
Family Court would not be in a position to adhere to the
time period fixed by this Court in Ext P6.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner. Although service of notice is complete on the
respondent, there is no appearance for him.
4. It is an undisputed fact that the disputes that
have led to the filing of Exts P1 to P4 arises out of the
marital relationship between the petitioner and the
respondent. The sole reason for the Family Court to
reject the application for consolidation and joint trial of
the cases is that this Court by Ext P6 judgment directed
the Family Court to consider and dispose of Ext P1
within six months from 20.11.2019.
OP (FC).No.189 OF 2020
5. It is a fact that this Court by Ext P6 had
directed the Family Court to consider and dispose of Ext
P1 within six months from 20.11.2019. Undisputedly,
Exts P2 to P4 cases were also pending consideration
before the Family Court along with Ext P1, when the
petitioner had sought for expeditious disposal of Ext P1.
Even though a report was called from the Family Court,
neither the petitioner nor the Family Court had brought
the said aspect to the notice of this Court. Had the fact
regarding the pendency of Exts P2 to P4 been brought
to the notice of this Court, certainly, while passing Ext
P6 judgment, this Court would have directed the Family
Court to consolidate and jointly try Exts P2 to P4 along
with Ext P1. As the same was not done, this Court did
not direct the consolidation and joint trial of the cases.
Moreover, even though Ext P6 judgment was passed on
20.11.2019, by virtue of the interim order passed by this
Court on 10.6.2020, further proceedings in Ext P1 have
been stayed. Accordingly, Ext P1 has not been disposed
of as directed in Ext P6.
OP (FC).No.189 OF 2020
6. In the said circumstances, considering that no
prejudice or inconvenience would be caused to either
the respondent or the petitioner in the consolidation
and joint trial of Exts P1 to P4, we are of the definite
opinion that if the cases are jointly tried, it would only
save judicial time, costs, multiplicity of recording of
evidence and also conflicting decisions.
7. Hence, taking note of the fact that Exts P2 to
P4 are between the same parties and arise out of the
martial relationship between the parties, we are of the
considered view, to meet the ends of justice, that Exts
P2 to P4 have to be consolidated and jointly tried with
Ext P1.
In the result, in exercise of the supervisory
jurisdiction of this Court as enshrined under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, we set aside Ext P5 order
and direct the Family Court, Kollam to consolidate and
jointly try Exts P1 to P4, in accordance with law.
Considering the fact that Ext P6 direction was already
passed by this Court as early as on 20.11.2019 and that
OP (FC).No.189 OF 2020
the cases are of the year 2017, we direct the Family
Court to make every endeavour to dispose of Exts P1 to
P4 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a
period of six months from today. Therefore, we enlarge
the time period fixed in Ext P6 by a further period of six
months from today.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS
SKS/19.1.2021 JUDGE
OP (FC).No.189 OF 2020
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS EXTS
P1-TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 16.9.2017 IN OP
(DMM) 1083/2017 BEFORE TEH FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM
P1(A)- TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT P1.
P2-TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED NIL OP 605/2017
BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM
P2(A)-TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P2
P3-TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 16.3.2017 OPG&W
316/2017 FILED BY TEH RESPONDENT HEREIN
P4-TRUE COPY OF MC NO.143 OF 2017 DATED 23.5.2017 FILED
BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM
P4(A)- TRUE COPY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT P4.
P5-TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 29.2.2020 IN I.A. 1/2020
IN OP 1083/2017 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOLLAM
P6-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OPFC 672/2019
