Kerala High Court
Rajeesh .T.R vs Silpa C.P on 13 June, 2025
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1947
OP (FC) NO. 348 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2025 IN IA NO.2/2025 IN OP
NO.1426 OF 2022 OF FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM
PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
RAJEESH .T.R, AGED 38 YEARS
S/O RAJAN T.L , THAYYIL (H),MUNDERI (PO) , RESIDING AT
THAMBURATTIKALLU, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT .
REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER NIKHIL, AGED 38
YEARS, S/O KAMALAN, THAYYIL HOUSE, THAMBURATTIKALLU,
NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679334
SHRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR
SMT.REMYA VARMA N.K
SMT.AISWARYA RAMESAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
SILPA C.P, AGED 30 YEARS
D/O SREENIVASAN (L), CHANDANAPPARAMBATH (H),
VENDEKKUMPOTTY, MARUTHA (PO), NILAMBUR TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 679333
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:41916
OP (FC) NO. 348 OF 2025
2
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The petitioner challenges Exts.P8, P9 and P10 orders of the learned Family Court, Malappuram, through which, IA Nos.2/2025, 3/2025 and 4/2025 in OP No.1426/2022 have been dismissed.
2. Sri.T.K.Ajith Kumar - learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the orders impugned are illegal and untenable because, his client had applied for the reopening of evidence; for the production of certain documents; for the summoning of certain witnesses, and for calling for certain records from such witnesses respectively through the afore various interim applications; and hence that the dismissal of the same by the learned Family Court solely for the reason that the evidence had been completed and that the matter is listed for hearing, is unlawful and contrary to the applicable statutory Scheme. He thus prayed that the impugned orders be set aside.
3. Even though we have heard Sri.T.K.Ajith Kumar on the afore lines, we are afraid that the situation does not appear 2025:KER:41916 OP (FC) NO. 348 OF 2025 3 to be as innocuous as he is now trying to project it.
4. We say as afore because, for one, the learned Family Court has recorded - without contest even by the petitioner before us - that the evidence in the Original Petition - which has been filed by the respondent herein - is complete, and that it is now listed for hearing. At that stage, the applications in question had been filed, but without citing any of the provisions under which the reliefs therein had been sought and in an omnibus fashion, multifariously with overlapping reliefs in each of them - that his evidence be reopened; that interrogatories be allowed to be submitted; that certain pen drives and all records be either summoned or allowed to be produced; and that certain witnesses be summoned, that too from a mobile phone service provider.
5. The learned Family Court has considered each of the applications and, through the impugned orders - which, though not detailed in its reasoning but containing the essential opinion
- has rejected each of them.
6. We notice from Exts.P8, P9 and P10 that, while dismissing IA No.2/2025, the learned Family Court has held that 2025:KER:41916 OP (FC) NO. 348 OF 2025 4 the plea to summon the "call history" is not tenable because the Original Petition did not include the period mentioned therein; and further, while dismissing IA No.3/2025, it has held that the attempt of the petitioner "to produce the call history" is unnecessary because what has been asked for was for a period of six months, which is not included in the cause of action. Finally, to dismiss IA No.4/2025, the learned Family Court has held that since evidence is over, a questionnaire - which we assume would be an interrogatory - is not maintainable under the provisions of the CPC and it is not necessary.
7. We have no doubt that the views expressed by the learned Family Court in the impugned orders are without error.
8. Apart from the reasons stated therein, we are in affirmation of the dismissal of the IAs for the singular reason that none of them admittedly contain the provisions invoked for seeking the prayers made therein.
9. As said above, the IAs contain confusing prayers, with some of them appearing in more than one of the applications, without being supported by any plea to summon witnesses through the procedure established in law, or to call 2025:KER:41916 OP (FC) NO. 348 OF 2025 5 for documents. Further, we cannot understand how an interrogatory/questionnaire can be sought to be presented by the petitioner after the evidence is concededly over .
In the afore circumstances, we see no merit in this Original Petition and it is, therefore, dismissed.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- M.B. SNEHALATHA JUDGE stu 2025:KER:41916 OP (FC) NO. 348 OF 2025 6 APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 348/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ORIGINAL PETITION IN O.P 1426/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM DATED 12.12.2022.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT DATED 27.06.2023 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER DATED 16.12.2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST THE COUNTER CLAIMS FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF IA NO. 2/2025 IN O.P. NO.
1426/2022 DATED 06.03.2025.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF IA NO. 3/2025 IN O.P. NO.
1426/2022 DATED 06.03.2025.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF IA NO. 4/2025 IN O.P. NO.
1426/2022 DATED 06.03.2025.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT DATED 14.03.2025 IN IA NO. 2/2025.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2025 IN IA NO. 2/2024 IN O.P 1426/2022.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2025 IN IA NO. 3/2025 IN O.P 1426/2022.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2025 IN IA NO. 4/2025 IN O.P 1426/2022.