IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 23551 of 2008(S) -------------------------- OP.No.154/2007 of FAMILY COURT, TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ DR.PREM HARIDAS MENON ,AGE 36 S/O.HARIDAS MENON, "SREEHARI" NEDUMCADU, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. DR.DEEPA HARIHARAN, AGE 29 D/O.LALITHAMBIKA AMMA, "NANDANAM" T.C. 20/1759 (2) KAVALLOOR LANE, VATTIYURKAVU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. HARIHARAN, AGE ABOUT 64 "NANDANAM" T.C. 20/1759 (2) KAVALLOOR LANE, VATTIYURKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MRS. LALITHAMBIKA, AGE ABOUT 60 "NANDANAM" T.C. 20/1759 (2) KAVALLOOR LANE, VATTIYURKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN FOR R1,2,3 SRI.RAJAN VELLOTH FOR R1,2,3 SRI.SAIJO HASSAN FOR R1,2,3 SRI.A.S.SABU FOR R1,2,3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.23551/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY NIMHANS, BANGALORE DTD. 16/6/2006. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY NIMHANS, BANGALORE. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DIVORCE PETITION IN O.P.NO.154/07, FAMILY COURT, TRIVANDRUM. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT EXPRESSING HER REFUSAL TO UNDERTAKE COUNSELING. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITON TO DIRECT THE WIFE TO UNDERGO MEDICAL EXAMINATION BEFORE THE MEDICAL BOARD. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION. P.R.RAMAN & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C)NO.23551 OF 2008 -------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Raman,J. The main relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to dispose of the petition for medical examination and to complete the trial of the case within a period of six months. During the pendency of the writ petition we had directed the parties to go and meet the Psychologist, who after examination, filed a report. 2. In such circumstances, the grievance of the petitioner stands substantially redressed. Whether the party should be sent to further examination so as to prove the case of the petitioner is not a matter to be considered in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Family Court if, after analysing the evidence in the matter, finds that further examination is required to be made, it -2- WP(C).No.23551/2008 can always order but at this stage no interference is called for. In such circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge. kcv.