Kerala High Court
Muhammed Shabeen K.P vs Shana Ashraf K.P on 29 September, 2025
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
2025:KER:72929
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 7TH ASWINA, 1947
OP (FC) NO. 551 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.6/2025 IN MC NO.261 OF 2023 OF
FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED SHABEEN K.P., AGED 30 YEARS
S/O. (LATE) ABDUL KAREEM K.P., KANJIRAPPULAN
HOUSE, KONDOTY, MELANGADI P. O., MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, REP. BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
ILLYAS K.P., S/O. (LATE) ABDUL KAREEM,
KANJIRAPULAN HOUSE, KONDOTY MELANGADI P. O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673640
BY ADVS.
SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED
SHRI.TOM PIOUS
SHRI.MANOJ N.
SMT.THASNEEM ASHRAF
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
SHANA ASHRAF K.P., AGED 23 YEARS
D/O. ASHRAF K., KOZHIKODAN KUZHI HOUSE,
MUNDUMUZHI, VAZHAKAD P.O., MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN - 673640
BY ADV SRI.NABIL KHADER
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:72929
OP(FC) 551/25
2
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran (J) The petitioner challenges Exts.P5 and P6 orders of the learned Family Court, Malappuram, making various assertions and allegations.
2. Upfront, we are totally confused - as any Court would be - because, it is admitted that the interim applications have been filed in multiple proceedings, including O.P.No.806/23, O.P.No.744/23 & M.C.No.261/23, but without citing to which case the relief sought in these applications pertain to.
3. Sri.Sunil V. Mohammed - learned counsel for the petitioner, explained that the I.As were filed in such fashion only because, all the three matters are being disposed of together through a joint trial. Even this is not convincing because, it is the first principle that applications have to be filed in the case in which reliefs are sought whether it is being tried jointly or otherwise.
2025:KER:72929 OP(FC) 551/25 3
4. As matters now stand, there are multiple I.A.s filed, namely, I.A.No.6/2025 for producing a witness list and seeking for summons to be issued to them; I.A.No.8/2025 - to produce certain documents, as also a certificate under Section 65B of the IT Act; I.A.No.9/2025 - to summon another witness; I.A.No.10/2025 - to permit the petitioner to examine himself again through videoconferencing; I.A.No.11/2025 - to produce the aforementioned certificate under Section 65B of the IT Act; and I.A.No.12/2025 - which is again to produce a witness list.
5. The impugned orders dismissed all the applications with reasons.
6. However, as we have said above, we have little idea - since the pleadings and materials on record give us no assistance - as to which case the applications pertain to. The learned Family Court has dismissed the applications saying that the evidence is over and that the respondent was examined at length, when there was no contradiction brought in. It has noticed that many of the 2025:KER:72929 OP(FC) 551/25 4 applications are on the factual assertion that the respondent was working, but that it does not contain details when she was and whether it was so at the time when the parties were together. As regards the certificate under Section 65B of the IT Act, the learned Family Court has clearly held that, in the absence of the information on who the owner of the phone is, the same cannot be accepted.
7. We have little doubt that the nature of the order, as we see, is primarily because the interim applications do not say to which case the relief therein relates to. Interestingly, even to a pointed question from this Court, Sri.Sunil Mohammed was unable to tell this, except saying that the M.C.No.261/2023 has been taken as the lead case. If the applications have been filed in M.C., then obviously, most of the matters sought to have been produced and the witnesses sought to be examined are totally unnecessary, as has been correctly found by the learned Family Court.
8. That apart, the learned Family Court has further 2025:KER:72929 OP(FC) 551/25 5 recorded that when the respondent was examined, she said that she was working as an intern and not as an employee; and therefore, one fails to understand why documents and witnesses are sought to be produced and summoned at the last lap, when the petitioner had all the time he wanted to do so. But, he did not do so and waited until the case is listed for final disposal.
9. When it is conceded before us that the petitioner was examined as PW1 as early as in February 2025, one cannot countenance the time he has taken to produce the additional documents, citing that he wants to place on record some additional information/inputs.
10. There is one more reason that compels us not to find in favour of the petitioner, namely, that if one goes through the I.A.s in the manner they have been listed by the learned Family Court, the reliefs in them overlap - for example, I.A.No.6/2025 was to summon certain witnesses, so is I.A.No.9/2025; and I.A.No.12/2025 is another petition to receive witness list. The explication offered 2025:KER:72929 OP(FC) 551/25 6 at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the first of the two I.A.s are to summon witnesses who will be produced by the petitioner; while the third is a petition to call for 'third party witnesses', namely those who will not come at his request. However, it is admitted that some of the witnesses in these two lists are common.
11. Further, in I.A.No.11/2025, the learned Family Court, as we have said, has held that the certificate sought to be produced under Section 65B of the IT Act cannot be allowed because, the name of the owner of the phone has not been stated. We cannot find error in this either.
12. Coming to I.A.No.10/2025, the petitioner seeks videoconferencing, which is exactly what was allowed through Ext.P4 order in I.A.No.4/2025, but conceded not to have been used. Repeated applications are filed for the same relief, namely to allow him to examine himself through mobile phone which, in any case, as per the applicable Rules, cannot be permitted, especially 2025:KER:72929 OP(FC) 551/25 7 in the absence of a co-coordinator.
13. Finally, I.A.No.8/2025 is to produce certain documents, as also the Section 65B Certificate, which again is overlapping with the prayer in I.A.No.11/2025. Obviously, the learned Family Court has acted correctly and one cannot find fault with it.
This Original Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/-
M.B. SNEHALATHA JUDGE RR 2025:KER:72929 OP(FC) 551/25 8 APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 551/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 14.07.2023 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF CHIEF AFFIDAVIT DATED 20.11.2024 OF THE RESPONDENT/PW1 TOGETHER WITH CROSS EXAMINATION DATED 07.01.2025 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CHIEF AFFIDAVIT DATED 05.02.2025 OF THE SAID PA HOLDER Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO. 4/2025 DATED 02.05.2025 OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25.06.2025 IN IA NO. 6/2025 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.06.2025 IN FILED IA NOS. 8/2025, 9/2025, 10/2025 11/2025 AND 12/2025