IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22808 of 2010(R)
1. K.S.RAJEEV, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SREEDEVI S.K., AGED 29 YEARS,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.ANIL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :02/08/2010
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.22808 of 2010-R
----------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 2nd day of August, 2010
J U D G M E N T
K.M.Joseph, J.
Petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
“a). That a writ of mandamus or other order or direction
be passed directing the Hon’ble Family Court,
Thiruvananthapuram to dispose of Exhibit P4 filed by the
petitioner within a time to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.
b). That a writ of mandamus or other be passed directing
the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to pass orders on
Exhibit P7 within a time to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.”
2. This Court ordered that a report be placed.
Accordingly, the Family Court has given a report. In the
report it is inter alia stated as follows:
” It is true that the petitioner has filed I.A 906/2010 on
23.4.2010 seeking to include the case in the special list for
trial. But the filing of that I.A was brought to my notice only
on 1.6.10 and on that date I have posted that I.A to
3.7.2010 for objection of the opposite side. But on that date
the opposite has not filed any objection. Hence the I.A
posted for objection with N.F.T. order to 7.8.2010. The
above I.A will be considered immediately after filing objection
if any and will be disposed of on merit on 7.8.10 and if I am
convinced that there is extreme urgency in the matter I will
definitely included the O.P in the special list and will be
disposed of on merit within 3 months from 7.8.2010 if both
sides co-operate.
WPC No.22808/2010 -2-
I may further submit that out of 3560 cases the
parties involved in about 75% of the cases are young couples
and they used to express urgency in disposing of their cases
and if the urgent matter alone is considered, time will not be
available to start trial of oldest and targeted cases which will
include cases pending trial for the last 17 years onwards
(cases filed during the year 1993 onwards is pending for
trial). Therefore, I used to give preference to the oldest
cases and also the cases included in the target so as to avoid
complaints by the parties and counsels appearing in the
oldest cases.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
there is real urgency. In view of the fact that the Family Court
has also stated that upon being convinced of the extreme
urgency the matter will be included in the special list and
dispose of within three months if both sides co-operate, we
dispose of the writ petition by taking note of the report as
indicated above.
(K.M.JOSEPH)
JUDGE.
(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS)
JUDGE.
MS