IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 17674 of 2009(R)
1. GRACE THIBIN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RENJITH
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.MOHANAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :25/06/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT & M.C.HARIRANI, JJ.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
W.P.(C).No.17674 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of June 2009
J U D G M E N T
BASANT,J
The petitioner is the respondent in an application for
divorce before the Family Court. Divorce is sought on the
ground of cruelty and desertion. Pending the said proceedings,
the respondent herein that is the husband/petitioner before the
Family Court came to this court for a direction for expeditious
disposal of the case. During the pendency of that application,
there was an attempt made by the Bench to induce the parties to
come to a settlement. That attempt did not succeed. The writ
petition was allowed by judgment dated 30/10/2008 (Ext.P3) with
a direction to the Family Court to dispose of the matter as
expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of four
months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
2. We are informed that though the trial is in progress,
the matter has not been disposed of so far. The petitioner has
now come to this court with a grievance that the court below is
about to receive Ext.P6 document in evidence by examining the
doctor who issued the same.
W.P.C No.17674/08 2
3. The learned counsel contends that such evidence has to
be eschewed and excluded. What are the reasons? The learned
counsel contends first of all that this court had not referred the
parties to any psychiatrist; but had referred the parties only to a
psychologist. The person who issued Ext.P6 is a psychiatrist and
therefore that evidence should not be accepted, it is contended. It
is further contended that the opinion given in Ext.P6 is not
acceptable. Sufficient detailed study and examination have not
been carried out before issuing Ext.P6. The learned counsel has a
further contention that the doctor who issued Ext.P6 is interested
and biased. Members of the family of the respondent are
physicians. The author of Ext.P6 is a colleague of theirs. They
belong to the same church also. For all these reasons, the contents
of Ext.P6 cannot be accepted, contends the learned counsel.
4. For all these various reasons, the petitioner prays that
the court below may be directed not to receive Ext.P6 in evidence
and examine the author thereof as a witness. Invoking the
extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction and Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, such examination may be prevented. This in
short is the plea.
5. We are afraid, the request cannot be accepted. We find
no reason to assume that the court below shall not consider the
W.P.C No.17674/08 3
admissibility and acceptability of Ext.P6 and the oral evidence if
any tendered by the author of Ext.P6. Nothing has been shown to
us to persuade this court to accept that Ext.P6 is inadmissible in
evidence. Be that as it may, we are satisfied that no detailed
consideration of even that question is necessary in this
proceedings. The petitioner must raise all his objections before the
court below and the court below must consider all such objections
raised about admissibility and acceptability of Ext.P6 and the oral
evidence to be tendered by the author of Ext.P6.
6. There is a time bound direction for disposal. We are not
satisfied, in the circumstances of the case, that notwithstanding
this direction, this writ petition can or ought to be entertained at
this stage. The petitioner must certainly co-operate with the court
below to implement the directions of this court for expeditious
disposal.
7. With the above observations, this writ petition is
dismissed.
8. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for
the petitioner.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(M.C.HARIRANI, JUDGE)
jsr
W.P.C No.17674/08 4
W.P.C No.17674/08 5
W.P.C No.17674/08 6
R.BASANT & M.C.HARIRANI, JJ.
.No. of 200
ORDER/JUDGMENT
18/06/2009