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.
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.
JT 2001 (7) SC 657
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
APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 325/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE
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
