IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009 / 9TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2486 of 2009(S) ------------------------- I.A.NO.1088 OF 2008 IN OP.368/2008 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- REMYA, AGED 27 YEARS, W/O.C.K.RAJESH KUMAR, KIZHAKKEPRAM, KOTTUVALLI, NORTH PARUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.CHANDRASEKHARAN SRI.P.VISWANADHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- C.K.RAJESHKUMAR, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, CHOLLONAL HOUSE, IRINGOLE, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.2486 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 29th January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. The petitioner, aggrieved by Ext.P4 order passed in I.A.No.1088/2008 in O.P.No.368/2008, has approached this Court by filing a writ petition. The petitioner is the respondent in the said I.A. and the mother of the child. The petition was filed by the respondent, the husband of the petitioner herein. There were some matrimonial disputes between the parties. The child is now with the custody of the petitioner. Some minor speech impairment was noticed and the child was earlier examined by an expert Doctor attached to the Medical Trust Hospital. The report shows that the impairment is only minor and the child can be admitted to an ordinary school and this was done. However, the husband, the respondent herein, not satisfied with the medical report, sought to file another application for examination of the child by another expert. Being the father, the court below W.P.(C) No. 2 thought, the request can be allowed and the matter was adjourned to 16.1.2009 and now stands posted to next week. 2. The main contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that this is only an attempt to harass the petitioner, and when an expert Doctor has given an opinion, a further report may not be required. We do not think, a second opinion sought for in the matter is totally unnecessary or that it is with the intention to harass the petitioner. True, the court below has not expressed any opinion on the report of the first expert. Further, the court also did not express any opinion as to whether a second report is required in the matter. It is more carried away by the sentiments expressed by the respondents for having a second opinion. Since in these matters, the court is exercising parent patria jurisdiction, and ultimately after examining whether such an examination by another expert is necessary or not, the court will form a prima facie opinion, and then if it is necessary, there is nothing wrong in sending the child for examination by another expert. It may not always be appropriate to give such directions. W.P.(C) No. 3 However, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in this writ petition, for the simple reason that the court have exercised its discretion in the matter and by an examination by another expert, no prejudice will be caused. However, we make it clear that in case the court grants permission as sought for, the child will be taken to the concerned Doctor by the petitioner herself, where the respondent can also be present, as was done in the previous occasion. The expense for consultation will be met by the respondent. The writ petition is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. nj.