Kerala High Court
Jinu S Baby vs Jiffy S. Jinu on 11 August, 2025
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
2025:KER:60057
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1947
OP (FC) NO. 461 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.07.2025 IN I.A.8/2025 IN
OP(OTHERS) NO.1236 OF 2023 OF FAMILY COURT, ADOOR
PETITIONER/PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
JINU S BABY, AGED 49 YEARS, SON OF N BABY,
RESIDING AT SADANANDAPURAM BUNGLOW, KADAMBANADU
NORTH MURI, KADAMBANAD VILLAGE, KADAMBANAD POST,
ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691552
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.MADHU
SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI
SHRI.RENJISH S. MENON
SMT.ALEENA JOSE
SMT.AVANTHIKA R.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
JIFFY S. JINU, AGED 46 YEARS, D/O P.K.VARGHESE,
SADANANDAPURAM BUNGLOW, KADAMBANADU NORTH MURI,
KADAMBANAD VILLAGE, KADAMBANAD POST, ADOOR TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 691552. NOW RESIDING AT
PLACKIYIL SUSY VILLA, IRUMPANAM POST, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 682309
BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE PREM
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:60057
OP(FC) 461/25
2
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The petitioner is admittedly the respondent in
OP(Others)1236/2023 filed by the respondent herein, seeking
partition of the property in question, on the assertion that it was
purchased in their joint names using her patrimony.
2. Smt.Aleena Jose - learned counsel for the petitioner,
conceded that the trial in the matter is now complete; but that
even before it was so, her client had filed an application seeking
to produce certain documents as additional evidence and also to
recall one of the witnesses - on either side for the purpose of
marking them. She pointed out that, however, the learned Family
Court dismissed this application through Ext.P10 order, entering
into a finding - even without enquiry - that the documents in
question are not relevant.
3. Smt.Aleena Jose explained that, going by the case of
the respondent in Ext.P1 Original Petition filed by her, she asserts
2025:KER:60057
OP(FC) 461/25
that the property in question was purchased by her patrimony; but
that, in the documents now sought to be produced - namely
Exts.P3, P4 and P5 - she has no such case. She argued it is,
therefore, that these documents are imperative to be on record, for
which the respondent will have to be recalled.
4. Sri.Varghese Prem - learned counsel for the respondent,
in response, submitted that the attempt of the petitioner is only to
delay the proceedings because, there is no inconsistency in any
document or pleading as asserted. He argued that, in fact, the
petitioner has already been examined as DW1 and that his cross
examination reveals several aspects against him. He predicated that
the attempt of the petitioner now is to fill up the lacunae; and
hence that it cannot be permitted. As an alternative submission, he
contended that, since his client has no fear about any evidence
being brought on record - being aware that the truth is with her
- she has no objection in DW1 being recalled and the documents
marked, so that her counsel can cross-examine him, as also test
2025:KER:60057
OP(FC) 461/25
the veracity of the documents in question. He argued that,
therefore, the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner,
that his client should be recalled for the purpose of marking the
documents, is untenable, particularly because they are all certified
copies of Court records.
5. We do not propose to enter into the merits of any of
the rival contentions for the singular reason that the Original
Petition is still pending before the learned Family Court. It is for
the said Court, at the first instance, to decide upon the truth and
veracity of all the assertions and it would not behoove us to speak
even peripherally about this.
6. Coming to the controversy in question, the trial of the
Original Petition is admittedly over and normally, it is only in
exceptional circumstances that this Court should intervene.
However, since we notice that the documents sought to be
produced are certified copies of Court orders and are attempted to
be impelled for the purpose of controverting the case of the
2025:KER:60057
OP(FC) 461/25
respondent, we are of the view that the alternative suggestion of
Sri.Varghese Prem ought to be accepted, so that there will be no
further issue with respect to the case in future, particularly after
the judgment and decree is delivered.
7. In such perspective and since we cannot allow the trial
of the case to continue ad infinitum, particularly when the
Original Petition is stated to be listed tomorrow for final hearing,
we deem it appropriate to issue the following orders:
a) We record the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that his client will be present before the learned Family
Court at 11 A.M. tomorrow (12.08.2025). We also record the
consent of counsel on both sides that DW1 can be recalled and
Exts.P3 to P5 documents attempted to mark through him, subject
to all remedies and liberties that are available to the respondent
herein.
b) On the afore undertaking and consent, we allow this
Original Petition and set aside Ext.P10; thus consequently allowing
2025:KER:60057
OP(FC) 461/25
Exts.P8 and P9 applications (I.A.No.8/2025 and 9/2025); however,
recalling only DW1 and no other witness.
c) We request the learned Family Court to attempt to
examine DW1 with respect to the afore directions, if possible
tomorrow, or on the next available date, without causing any
delay to the Original Petition.
d) Needless to say, all available remedies to both sides
during the afore exercise and the disposal of the Original Petition
shall be made available to them.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B. SNEHALATHA
JUDGE
RR
2025:KER:60057
OP(FC) 461/25
APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 461/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN O. P.
NO. 1236/2023 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY
COURT, ADOOR
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN O. P.
NO. 1236/2023 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY
COURT, ADOOR
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN O. P.
NO. 730/2021 ON THE FILES OF THE FAMILY
COURT PATHANAMTHITTA WHICH WAS
SUBSEQUENTLY TRANSFERRED TO THE FAMILY
COURT, ADOOR
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN MC NO.
32/2021 ON THE FILES OF THE LEARNED
JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT,
ADOOR
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN O.P (G &
W) NO. 1315/2022 ON THE FILES OF THE
FAMILY COURT PATHANAMTHITTA WHICH WAS
SUBSEQUENTLY TRANSFERRED TO THE FAMILY
COURT, ADOOR WHEREIN IT WAS RENUMBERED AS
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN I.A.NO.
8/2025 IN O. P. NO. 1236/2023 ON THE
FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, ADOOR
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN I.A.NO.
8/2025 IN O. P. NO. 1236/2023 ON THE
FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, ADOOR
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN I.A.NO.
9/2025 IN O. P. NO. 1236/2023 ON THE
FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, ADOOR
Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN I.A.NO.
9/2025 IN O. P. NO. 1236/2023 ON THE
FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, ADOOR
Exhibit P10 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER
DATED 9/7/2025 IN I.A NUMBERS 8/2025 AND
9/2025 IN O. P. NO. 1236/2023 ON THE
FILES OF THE FAMILY COURT, ADOOR
