IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1439 of 2009(S)
1. SHAJI.M.K., S/O.LATE M.K.KUMARAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. GEETHA M.K., W/O. SRI.SHAJI M.K.,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :29/07/2009
O R D E R
R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
------------------------------------
W.P(C) No.1439 of 2009
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of July, 2009
JUDGMENT
BASANT, J.
The petitioner/husband is the petitioner in an application
for divorce filed as early as in 2004. Divorce was claimed on the
ground of cruelty. The matter has been pending before the
Family Court, Trichur and several connected and ancillary
proceedings are also pending. It is submitted at the Bar that in
O.P.No.1220 of 2004, a time bound direction for final disposal
has already been issued by this Court.
2. While O.P.No.1220 of 2004 is pending, the petitioner
allegedly came to know that the respondent/his wife was
indulging in adulterous conduct. He therefore filed an
application to include that further ground – of adultery, as
ground for divorce. As the further claim for divorce was on the
ground of adultery, he wanted additional respondents to be
impleaded also. The learned Judge of the Family Court, by the
impugned order, copy of which is produced as Ext.P2, dismissed
the said applications. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by
the impugned order. He has come to this Court raising
grievances against Ext.P2 order and an interim stay was granted
W.P(C) No.1439 of 2009 2
as early as on 16.01.09. The respondent has now come before
this Court to vacate the interim order and to direct expeditious
disposal of O.P.No.1220 of 2004.
3. We do not find any merit in the challenge raised
against Ext.P2. The petition was filed as early as in 2004 and the
ground for divorce claimed in that O.P is only cruelty. As already
noted there is a direction for time bound disposal of O.P.No.1220
of 2004. According to the respondent, the present attempt is
nothing but a transparent by vexatious and naked attempt to
delay the disposal of O.P.No.1220 of 2004 and to vex and harass
the respondent herein.
4. What is the grievance of the petitioner ? The
subsequent ground which is available to the petitioner can
certainly be cause of action for a fresh claim for divorce. It is not
necessary at all to go into the merits of the contentions
regarding adultery raised. Those allegations, if true, the
petitioner can certainly maintain another application for
adultery. At any rate, we do not find any reason to further cause
delay in the disposal of O.P.No.1220 of 2004. The learned Judge
of the Family Court had, in these circumstances, refused to grant
impleadment and amendment of the petition to include the fresh
W.P(C) No.1439 of 2009 3
ground of adultery. In any view of the matter, we are not
satisfied that invoking the extraordinary constitutional
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, there
is any justification or necessity to interfere with the impugned
order.
5. We do however note the contentions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that observation on merits about the
acceptability of the allegations regarding adultery have been
made in the impugned order. We need only clarify that any
observations to that effect in the common order Ext.P2 will not
fetter or affect the right of the petitioner to claim divorce on the
ground of adultery on such fresh ground if it is otherwise
available to him.
6. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances,
dismissed. Needless to say, the learned Judge of the Family
Court, Trichur must ensure expeditious disposal of O.P.No.1220
of 2004.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
rtr/-