Kerala High Court
K.R.Krishnakumar vs Sreekala on 4 March, 2025
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
2025:KER:18333
OP (FC) NO. 119 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1946
OP (FC) NO. 119 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.02.2025 IN I.A.NO.4/2025 IN OP
NO.398 OF 2023 OF FAMILY COURT, ADOOR
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:
1 K.R.KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED 55 YEARS
S/O LATE K.G.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, KALARICKAL VEEDU,
KURUPPANKULANGARA.P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN -
688539
2 INDIRA, AGED 70 YEARS
W/O LATE K.G.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, KALARICKAL VEEDU,
KURUPPANKULANGARA.P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN -
688539
BY ADVS.
A.RAJASIMHAN
NIKHIL.A.AZEEZ
VYKHARI.K.U
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
SREEKALA, AGED 53 YEARS
D/O GOMATHIYAMMA, CHAMAKALA VEEDU, ICADU MURI, KODUMON
VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER SREELATHA, D/O GOMATHIYAMMA, CHAMAKALA VEEDU,
ICADU MURI, KODUMON VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 691523
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:18333
OP (FC) NO. 119 OF 2025
2
JUDGMENT
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN (J)
The petitioners challenge Ext.P13 order of
the learned Family Court, Adoor, which allowed
I.A.No.4/2025 in O.P.No.398/2023 in part, thus
allowing the respondent to examine herself as
an additional witness.
2. Sri.A.Rajasimhan - learned counsel
for the petitioners, argued that the order
impugned is illegal because, it has allowed the
respondent to lead further evidence, even after
her witnesses had been fully examined as PW1
and PW2 respectively. He pointed out that, in
fact, PW1 is none other than the Power of
Attorney Holder of the respondent and that her
present attempt is to "fill up the gaps" in the
testimony of the said witness and manipulate
the evidence in the manner she wants. He then
pointed out that, in fact, in an earlier
2025:KER:18333
OP (FC) NO. 119 OF 2025
occasion, the learned Family Court had issued
Ext.P9 order dismissing an application filed by
his client seeking that the respondent herself
be ordered to give evidence and not through her
Power of Attorney; and hence that the impugned
order now issued would travel against its
tenor. He thus prayed that Ext.P13 be set
aside.
3. We have examined submissions of
Sri.A.Rajsimhan, on the touchstone of the
various materials on record.
4. Even if it is to be assumed that
Ext.P9 order has been issued by the learned
Family Court in November, 2024, it can only
mean that it had accepted the version of the
respondent that her Power of Attorney is
competent to give evidence on her behalf.
However, after PW1 and PW2 are so examined -
the first witness being the Power of Attorney
2025:KER:18333
OP (FC) NO. 119 OF 2025
Holder of the respondent - she filed the
application in question seeking that she be
allowed to give evidence, since certain aspects
require to be further clarified or
substantiated. This application was opposed by
the petitioners merely saying that, since PW1
had already deposed, the respondent cannot be
allowed to "fill up the gaps" in his evidence.
5. However, we fail to understand the
import of the afore argument because, when the
respondent - who filed the Original Petition
seeking return of gold ornaments and for her
patrimony - desires to examine herself as a
witness, it is untenable that such an
opportunity be shut off, particularly since she
is the person who can offer the best evidence
for herself.
6. Further, the very factum of the
petitioner themselves having admittedly filed
2025:KER:18333
OP (FC) NO. 119 OF 2025
an earlier application seeking that the
respondent be directed to personally mount the
witness box - which albeit had been dismissed
through Ext.P9 - would render the position
ineluctable that the impugned order is to their
benefit, or at least that it would cause them
no prejudice.
7. That said, we notice from Ext.P13
that the learned Family Court has understood
the factual and legal position correctly
because, it has not allowed the additional
witness cited by the respondent to be examined,
finding that the relevance of such a course has
not been properly explained. However, when it
comes to the respondent - who is the petitioner
in the Original Petition - the position is
totally different, as has been correctly
analysed by the learned Family Court.
In the afore circumstances, we see no
2025:KER:18333
OP (FC) NO. 119 OF 2025
reason to interfere at this stage and
therefore, dismiss this Original Petition.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
M.B. SNEHALATHA
JUDGE
SAS
2025:KER:18333
OP (FC) NO. 119 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 119/2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE THE JUDGMENT DATED 28-2-2019
OF THE FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA IN OP (HMA)
NO. 176 OF 2018.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OP NO. 398 OF 2023 FILED BY
THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT ADOOR
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS IN THE OP NO. 398 OF 2023
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MC NO. 233 OF 2023 FILED BY
THE RESPONDENT IN THE FAMILY COURT ADOOR
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER IN MC NO. 233 OF 2023
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF IA NO. 2/2019 FILED BY THE POWER
OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF THE RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF WITNESS SUBMITTED BY
THE RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO. 3 OF 2024 IN OP NO.
398 OF 2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13-11-2024 IN IA
NO. 3 OF 2024 IN OP NO. 398 OF 2023 OF THE
FAMILY COURT, ADOOR
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL WITNESS LIST
FILED BY THE RESPONDENT
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF IA NO. 4 OF 2025 IN OP NO. 398
OF 2023 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN IA NO. 4 OF
2025 IN OP NO. 398 OF 2023 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P13 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21-2-2025
IN IA NO. 4 OF 2025 IN OP 398 OF 2023 OF
FAMILY COURT, ADOOR
