Kerala High Court
M.Babu vs Menaka @ Bindu on 17 January, 2017
Bench: A.M.Shaffique, K.Ramakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/27TH POUSHA, 1938
Mat.Appeal.No. 45 of 2017 ()
-----------------------------
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:
-----------------------
M.BABU
AGED:45 YEARS, S/O MADHAVAN,
RESIDING AT VADAKKATHIVILKATHU VEEDU,
KARUMKULAM, PULLUVILA.P.O,
KARUMKULAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY ADVS.SRI.V.AJAKUMAR
SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN
SRI.SIDHARTH A.MENON
RESPONDENT(S)/COUNTER PETITIONER:
---------------------------------
1. MENAKA @ BINDU
AGED:37 YEARS, D/O SOBHANA,
KRISHNA BBADRA, KUTHATHILVILAKOM VEEDU,
KARUMUGAL, PULLUVILA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695526
2. M.PRADEEP
AGED:32 YEARS, S/O MANIYAN,
RESIDING AT MANIVASANTHAM,
PACHAMVILAKOM, PULLUVILLA.PO,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695526
THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
A.M. SHAFFIQUE & K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.
===========================
Mat.Appeal No. 45 of 2017
==================
Dated this, the 17th day of January, 2017
J U D G M E N T
Shaffique, J.
This appeal has been filed challenging order dated 21/12/2016 in IA Nos.3233 and 3234/2016 in OP No.709/2011. The applications were filed by the petitioner to reopen the evidence and to receive memory card and also to send the memory card to Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram. The applications have been dismissed by the Family Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid evidence will clearly prove the case set up by the petitioner. Perusal of the order clearly indicates that petitioner had filed two applications as IA Nos.3732/2014 and 3733/2014 for sending the CD for expert opinion which has been dismissed by a common order dated 21/7/2016. The said order had been challenged and the matter is remitted back to the Family Court. Again the same had been rejected. In the said view of the MA No.45/2017 -:2:- matter, the Court below was of the opinion that there is no necessity to send the memory card to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Even according to the petitioner, the memory card was in his possession at the time of adducing evidence. He did not opt to produce it at the relevant time. It is therefore rather clear that a situation for reopening the evidence and to send the memory card to Forensic Science Lab for examination at this stage of the proceedings was rightly refused. However, if at all the petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid facts and the case is decided against the petitioner, it is always open for the petitioner to take up such contentions at the time of preferring an appeal against the judgment in the case. In the said circumstances, we do not think that there is any error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court at this stage of the proceedings.
Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE Sd/-
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
Rp17/1/2017 //True Copy//
P.S to Judge