IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 1439 of 2009(S) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09/12/2008 IN IA 4412/08,4413/2008 IN OP.1220/2004 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- SHAJI.M.K., S/O.LATE M.K.KUMARAN AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT IITH CROSS, UDAYA NAGAR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR SRI.C.S.DIAS SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN RESPONDENT: --------------- GEETHA M.K., W/O. SRI.SHAJI M.K., AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT IITH CROSS, UDAYA NAGAR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR FOR R1 SMT.P.A.ANITHA FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------ W.P(C) No.1439 of 2009 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. The petitioner/husband is the petitioner in an application for divorce filed as early as in 2004. Divorce was claimed on the ground of cruelty. The matter has been pending before the Family Court, Trichur and several connected and ancillary proceedings are also pending. It is submitted at the Bar that in O.P.No.1220 of 2004, a time bound direction for final disposal has already been issued by this Court. 2. While O.P.No.1220 of 2004 is pending, the petitioner allegedly came to know that the respondent/his wife was indulging in adulterous conduct. He therefore filed an application to include that further ground - of adultery, as ground for divorce. As the further claim for divorce was on the ground of adultery, he wanted additional respondents to be impleaded also. The learned Judge of the Family Court, by the impugned order, copy of which is produced as Ext.P2, dismissed the said applications. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the impugned order. He has come to this Court raising grievances against Ext.P2 order and an interim stay was granted W.P(C) No.1439 of 2009 2 as early as on 16.01.09. The respondent has now come before this Court to vacate the interim order and to direct expeditious disposal of O.P.No.1220 of 2004. 3. We do not find any merit in the challenge raised against Ext.P2. The petition was filed as early as in 2004 and the ground for divorce claimed in that O.P is only cruelty. As already noted there is a direction for time bound disposal of O.P.No.1220 of 2004. According to the respondent, the present attempt is nothing but a transparent by vexatious and naked attempt to delay the disposal of O.P.No.1220 of 2004 and to vex and harass the respondent herein. 4. What is the grievance of the petitioner ? The subsequent ground which is available to the petitioner can certainly be cause of action for a fresh claim for divorce. It is not necessary at all to go into the merits of the contentions regarding adultery raised. Those allegations, if true, the petitioner can certainly maintain another application for adultery. At any rate, we do not find any reason to further cause delay in the disposal of O.P.No.1220 of 2004. The learned Judge of the Family Court had, in these circumstances, refused to grant impleadment and amendment of the petition to include the fresh W.P(C) No.1439 of 2009 3 ground of adultery. In any view of the matter, we are not satisfied that invoking the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, there is any justification or necessity to interfere with the impugned order. 5. We do however note the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that observation on merits about the acceptability of the allegations regarding adultery have been made in the impugned order. We need only clarify that any observations to that effect in the common order Ext.P2 will not fetter or affect the right of the petitioner to claim divorce on the ground of adultery on such fresh ground if it is otherwise available to him. 6. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. Needless to say, the learned Judge of the Family Court, Trichur must ensure expeditious disposal of O.P.No.1220 of 2004. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/-