Kerala High Court
Robin Joseph vs Sylvia Mayinjer Manfredi on 3 April, 2025
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
OP(FC).No.191 of 2025
2025:KER:28541
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947
OP (FC) NO. 191 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 29.01.2025 IN
I.A.NO.14 OF 2024 IN OP NO.672 OF 2022 OF FAMILY COURT,
MUVATTUPUZHA
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
ROBIN JOSEPH
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O JOSEPH NADUKUDIYIL VARKEY AMBAZHACHALIL HOUSE
PUTHUPPADY POST, CHIRAPPADY KARA KOTHAMANGALAM
VILLAGE KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686673
BY ADVS.
ALIAS M.CHERIAN
K.M.RAPHY
BRISTO S PARIYARAM
MINNU DARWIN
RESHMA RAJESH
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
SYLVIA MAYINJER MANFREDI
AGED 57 YEARS
W/O ROBIN JOSEPH VIA VIRGINIA, 23, 00181 ROM,
ITALY. NOW RESIDING AT AMBAZHACHALIL HOUSE
PUTHUPPADY POST, CHIRAPPADY KARA KOTHAMANGALAM
VILLAGE KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686673
OP(FC).No.191 of 2025
2025:KER:28541
2
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP(FC).No.191 of 2025
2025:KER:28541
3
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The petitioner challenges Ext.P8 order of the learned Family Court, Muvattupuzha, which declined permission to allow certain interrogatories that he proposed against the respondent.
2. Sri.Alias M.Cherian - learned Counsel for the petitioner, pointed out that the Original Petition before the learned Family Court, namely OP.No.672/2022, was filed by the respondent, seeking return of money and gold against his client; and that he countered that it with a counterclaim seeking declaration of nullity of the marriage.
3. The learned Counsel explained that his client did so because, the respondent had been married earlier at least twice and has children from such relationships; and therefore that he filed I.A.No.14/2024, invoking the provisions of Order XI Rules 1 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), thus, proposing a set of interrogatories relevant to the controversy in issue. He pointed that, however, the learned Family Court has allowed the interrogatories only except 1, 3, 4 and 6, through the impugned order; and hence that his client has been constrained to approach this Court.
4. We have examined Ext.P4, which is the application OP(FC).No.191 of 2025 2025:KER:28541 4 serving interrogatories on the respondent, in which the questions posed as 1, 3, 4 and 6 are as under:
"1. Disclose your first husband's name with his full address.
3. Disclose whether you have any issues (Children) in the first wed lock?
4. Disclose your second husband's name and his full address.
6. Disclose the details of date of birth of children in the second marriage with their full address."
5. The learned Family Court has held that the afore information would impinge upon the privacy of the persons whose details are sought to be obtained; and also that it is probable that the respondent's version, that the petitioner will create trouble for them, is true.
6. When one goes through the questions that have been objected to, it is limpid that the petitioner does not merely ask whether the respondent has been married before, or whether she has children, but has sought for the personal details of the gentlemen involved, as also that of the children.
6. We have no doubt that this impinges upon the privacy of the persons concerned, particularly because they are not in the party array; and especially when we take into account the factum of the children also being dragged in. OP(FC).No.191 of 2025
2025:KER:28541 5
7. We, therefore, cannot find any fault with Ext.P8; and on the contrary, are of the view that the learned Family Court has appreciated the facts correctly, though the said order is not very detailed.
The probability of the petitioner causing trouble for the persons whose information has been sought, as objected to by the respondent, being real, we cannot find Ext.P8 to be in any error; and therefore, dismiss this Original Petition.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-
M.B.SNEHALATHA, JUDGE Mms OP(FC).No.191 of 2025 2025:KER:28541 6 APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 191/2025 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 A TRUE TYPED COPY OF THE PETITION NO.
672 OF 2022 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.
Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION AND COUNTER CLAIM IN OP NO. 672 OF 2022 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.
Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN OP NO. 672 OF 2022 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN IA NO. 14 OF 2024 IN OP NO. 672 OF 2022 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.
Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN IA NO. 14 OF 2024 IN OP NO. 672 OF 2022 BEFORE
THE FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.
Exhibit-P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN IA NO. 16 OF 2024 IN OP NO. 672 OF 2022 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.
Exhibit-P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT IN IA NO. 16 OF 2024 IN OP NO. 672 OF 2022 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. Exhibit-P8 A TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 29/01/2025 IN IA NO. 14 OF 2024 IN OP NO. 672 OF 2022 PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.
Exhibit-P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/01/2025 IN IA NO. 16 OF 2024 OP NO. 672 OF 2022 PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.