Kerala High Court
Akhil Raj vs Jayalekshmi on 16 January, 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
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 26TH POUSHA, 1946
OP (FC) NO. 789 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.12.2024 IN OPHMA NO.1535 OF 2023
OF FAMILY COURT, PARAVOOR
PETITIONER:
AKHIL RAJ, AGED 35 YEARS
S/O MANIRAJAN RESIDING AT MITHILA, EDAVATTAM,
CHIRAKKARA P.O, CHIRAKKARA VILLAGE, KOLLAM - 691578
HARISH GOPINATH
SURUMI NAZAR
RESPONDENT:
JAYALEKSHMI, AGED 26 YEARS
D/O BEENA, RESIDING AT J.S NIVAS, VANDIPURA,
PALAYAMKUNNU, CHEMMARUTHI VILLAGE, VARKALA TALUK,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 691546
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.01.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:3219
OP (FC) NO. 789 OF 2024
2
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order of the learned Family Court, South Paravur, to the extent to which it has appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the cupboard of his residence, so as to identify certain gold ornaments which is alleged by the respondent to be in his custody.
2. Sri.Harish Gopinath - learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that Ext.P4 order to the extent impugned is illegal and unlawful because, the Original Petition was filed by his client seeking divorce, in which, the respondent took the position that she is willing for "settlement", provided certain gold ornaments of hers allegedly in his client's possession are returned to her. He submitted that, when his client denied possession of any such gold ornaments, it was improper for the learned Family Court to have issued Ext.P4 to the extent impugned, though he does not stand in the way of the joint bank locker being inspected.
3. In fact, on hearing Sri.Harish Gopinath on the afore lines on 19.12.2024, when this matter was heard, we had 2025:KER:3219 OP (FC) NO. 789 OF 2024 3 passed the following order:
"Sri.Harish Gopinath - learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that his client is impugning the order only because it is likely to cause humiliation to him for no reason. He, however, agreed that since the locker is joint, inspection of the same can be continued, but not that which has been ordered his client's cupboard.
We find some force in the afore submission and therefore, direct the petitioner to take out notice to the respondent before admission by speed post.
In the meanwhile, Ext.P4 order is stayed to the extent to which the Advocate Commissioner has been directed to inspect the cupboard of the petitioner, but clarifying that he will be free to inspect the joint locker No.27 of Indian Bank, Chirakkara Branch and take an inventory of the same. However, the articles - whatever found, shall be retained in the said locker without moving."
4. We notice from the endorsements on file that summons from this Court has been validly served on the respondent. However, she has chosen not to be present in person today, or to be represented through counsel. In fact, this was the same position even when this case was earlier listed. We are, therefore, constrained to dispose of this Original Petition in her absence.
5. When one examines Ext.P4, it is evident that the learned Family Court has acted on the assurance of the wife that she will "settle" the matter - which is perhaps to mean that she will agree for divorce - if the gold claimed by her are 2025:KER:3219 OP (FC) NO. 789 OF 2024 4 returned to her by the petitioner. The learned Court, obviously in the best interests of the parties, agreed to such a course and appointed the Advocate Commissioner.
6. However, there is a problem that the petitioner says he encounters here - which we find to be prima facie valid - namely that, if his house is to be so inspected, it may create stigma on his reputation. Further there is no guarantee that the petitioner cannot remove any article in the interregnum when such visit of the Commissioner happens.
7. That apart, we see no reason why the Court should engineer a "settlement" between the parties; and if the wife wanted any corollary relief qua the gold ornaments allegedly in the possession of the petitioner, it was for her to have moved appropriate applications in apposite proceedings. There is, prima facie, some force in the submissions of Sri.Harish Gopinath that, in a matter filed by his client for divorce, an order akin to Ext.P4, solely for the purpose of obtaining a "settlement" between the parties may not be fully appropriate.
8. That said, we do not intend to intervene in Ext.P4 to the extent to which it has allowed the inspection of the joint locker of the parties in the Indian Bank, Chirakkara Branch, 2025:KER:3219 OP (FC) NO. 789 OF 2024 5 since it is not opposed even before us by Sri.Harish Gopinath.
9. In the afore circumstances, we allow this Original Petition in part and set aside Ext.P4 to the extent to which the learned Family Court has ordered the learned Advocate Commissioner to inspect the cupboard of the house of the petitioner.
We, however, clarify that every other liberty to the parties, as available in law, are left open.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- M.B. SNEHALATHA JUDGE stu 2025:KER:3219 OP (FC) NO. 789 OF 2024 6 APPENDIX OF OP (FC) 789/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OP(HMV) NO. 1535 OF 2023 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, PARAVUR Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A 1/2024 IN O.P(HMA) NO.
1535 OF 2023 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, PARAVUR Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY RESPONDENTS IN I.A 1/2024 IN O.P(HMA) NO. 1535 OF 2023 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, PARAVUR Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02/12/2024 IN I.A 1/2024 IN O.P(HMA) NO. 1535 OF 2023 ON THE FILE OF FAMILY COURT, PARAVUR