Kerala High Court
Arun K Nair vs Minu M on 13 September, 2024
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 22ND BHADRA, 1946
RP NO. 858 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.07.2024 IN OP (FC) NO.627 OF
2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
ARUN K NAIR
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O M.C. KARUNAKARAN NAIR, MANGATTU HOUSE, MEMURY KARA,
PAMPAKUDA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686667
BY ADVS.
M.B.SANDEEP
K.P.SREEJA
ASWATHY JAYARAJ
VISHNU K.K.
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
MINU M
AGED 37 YEARS
W/O ARUN K NAIR , D/O K.R. MANMADHAN NAIR KARUNATTU
(H), THODUPUZHA EAST P.O., KANJIRAMATTOM KARA, IDUKKI
DISTRICT, PIN - 685585
BY ADVS.
ROY THOMAS (MUVATTUPUZHA)
2024:KER:70062
RP NO. 858 OF 2024
2
K.K.SUBEESH(K/001629/2022)
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:70062
RP NO. 858 OF 2024
3
O R D E R
This petition seeking review of the
judgment of this Court dated 17.07.2024 has
been impelled with two broad assertions:
namely, a) that it was on account of
unavoidable circumstances that the petitioner
was not present before this Court when it was
delivered; and b) the findings in the said
judgment are erroneous.
2. Sri.M.B.Sandeep - learned counsel
for the petitioner, explained that his client
was at Sabarimala at the time when this matter
was considered by this Court and was stranded
there on account of heavy rains, without being
able to return. He then moved on to the second
limb afore and argued that, when his client
2024:KER:70062
RP NO. 858 OF 2024
approached the learned Family court seeking
counselling, it was clearly intended that the
parties can attempt a full settlement of all
disputes and therefore, that such an
opportunity ought to have been granted. He thus
prayed that this petition be allowed and the
judgment be reviewed.
3. Sri.Roy Thomas - learned counsel
for the respondent, in response, argued that,
as regards limb (a) above, his client does not
intend to enter into a contest; but that, as
has been recorded by this Court, the date on
which the judgment was delivered was fixed for
appearance for the parties and that his client
had travelled all the way from Idukki, braving
all odds, on a day lashed by rains.
4. As regards limb (b) above, she
argued that when his client is not ready to
2024:KER:70062
RP NO. 858 OF 2024
subject herself to a "psychological
counselling", it would not be possible, even
for this Court, to force her to do so, as has
been correctly held in the judgment sought to
be impugned. He thus prayed that this review
petition be dismissed.
5. We have considered the afore rival
submissions on the touchstone of the various
materials on record.
6. We must say upfront that we do not
cast blame on the petitioner for not having
appeared before this court, though we have
recorded - in paragraph 4 of the judgment -
our disapproval in him not having been present.
This was only because the respondent - wife had
travelled to Ernakulam from Idukki, braving
very heavy monsoons on that day. However,
accepting the explanation now given by the
2024:KER:70062
RP NO. 858 OF 2024
petitioner, we condone his absence. We must,
however, also clarify that the judgment in
question was not delivered merely because the
petitioner was not present; but after having
considered every aspect in its proper
perspective, as is evident from our
observations therein.
7. Coming to the next issue as
already recorded in the judgment, we had
interacted with the respondent - wife, who
unequivocally informed us that she is not ready
to go for a "psychological counselling" and
that she is willing to contest the Original
Petition on its merits. We, therefore, had no
other option, but to then enter an opinion
that, when an application was filed by the
petitioner herein offering himself for a
physiological evaluation and then requiring his
2024:KER:70062
RP NO. 858 OF 2024
wife - the respondent herein, also be forced to
do so, it presented a scenario where this Court
could not have come to his aid, in the face of
such resistance offered by her.
8. It is in such circumstances and
leaving full competence to the learned Family
Court to take any other action, which is
statutorily provided dehors our observations,
that we closed the Original Petition.
9. Obviously, there is nothing for us
to review, as far as the directions in the
judgment are concerned; and, in fact, what the
petitioner now attempts is virtually a
rehearing of the Original petition itself,
which is not permissible or possible.
In the afore circumstances, with every
liberty - as reserved to the parties in the
judgment - being left open even now, we close
2024:KER:70062
RP NO. 858 OF 2024
this review petition without any further
orders.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B. SNEHALATHA
SAS JUDGE
2024:KER:70062
RP NO. 858 OF 2024
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE VIRTUAL Q BOOKING COUPON OF
SABARIMALA DATED 13.07.2024
