IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2011 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1933 OP (FC).No. 3162 of 2011(R) ------------------------------------- OP.366/2006 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: MINI, AGED 44 YEARS, D/O.DEVASSY,CHELLAKUDAM HOUSE, MALA PALLIPPURAM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS RESPONDENT: C.C. JOY, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.CHEKKUNY, CHERADAYI HOUSE, KOTTANELLUR P.O., KADUPPASSERY VILLAGE,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS M.JACOB SRI.AKHIL K.MADHAV THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/10/2011 ALONG WITH OPFC NO.3163 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN OPFC3162/2011 EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 21.3.2011 IN IA 6953/10 EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE IA 3273/2011 IN OP 559/2006 EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE IA 5262/2011 IN OP 559/2006 EXT. P4 TRUE COPY OF THE IA 5263/2011 IN OP 559/2006 EXT. P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED AGAINST EXT. P3 EXT. P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED AGAINST EXT. P4 EXT. P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 16.9.2011 OF THE FAMILY COURT THRISSUR ON EXTS. P3 AND P4 /TRUE COPY/ Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & C.T.Ravikumar, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- O.P.(FC)No.3162 & 3163 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of October, 2011. JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. These writ petitions are filed seeking intervention in exercise of visitorial jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India during the trial in a proceeding pending before the Family Court. Re-opening of evidence, for permission to examine some witnesses, etc. form the substance of these writ petitions. 2. These matters arise from a litigation that commenced before the Family Court in the year 2006. We see that earlier, the parties were here. Repeated access to the superior court under Article 227 is not a healthy practice at least in connection with family disputes where the life of the litigation cannot be permitted to prolong beyond a reasonable time having regard to the fact that OPFC 3162 & 3163/2011 2 such litigation essentially deal with the life of the couple and their children, assets, etc. 3, Due regard has to be had to the scheme of the Family Courts Act; the wisdom that lie embodied in its object; the freedom of the Family Court to deal with matters even without being tied to the strict rules of procedure and evidence in terms of Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Act. We may also recall that appointments of Judges of the Family Courts are also regulated by certain yardsticks advised by the Family Courts Act itself. Not only that, there is a wholesome appeal provided against the final verdict of the Family Court. With this, we are of the view that impugned orders do not warrant interference at this stage. 4. We leave open the right, if any, of the petitioner to agitate all issues as may be necessary, in any appeal after the disposal of the main matter. OPFC 3162 & 3163/2011 3 5. Parties are directed to co-operate with the efforts of the Family Court, Thrissur to finally dispose of the original petition filed in the year 2006 (O.P.No.366/2006) at the earliest. These petitions are ordered accordingly. Communicate to the court below. (Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge) (C.T.Ravikumar, Judge) tkv/31.10.