IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2011 / 12TH ASWINA 1933 OP (FC).No. 3200 of 2011(R) --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 52/2010 IN OPHMA.1196/2008 of FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER ------------------- VIVEK.S., S/O.S.SATHEESH BABU, RESIDING AT R.7, JAI NAGAR, KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695011. BY ADV. SRI.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL SRI.S.VISHNU RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. ANILA.M., AGED 22, D/O.R.MURALILAL, RESIDING AT SOUPARNIKA, NAVAIKULAM, KALLAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 605. 2. R.MURALILAL, AGED 52, RESIDING AT SOUPARNIKA, NAVAIKULAM, KALLAMBALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695605. THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. *********************** O.P(F.C) No.3200 of 2011-R ***************************** Dated this the 4th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is filed by the petitioner against dismissal of his application for amendment. O.P(HMA) No.1196 of 2008 was filed for annulment of marriage on the ground that the wife was not having proper state of mind at the time of marriage. In 2010 an application was filed for amendment of the petition to incorporate certain averments in para.15. The learned Judge of the Family Court by the impugned order rejected the prayer. Rejection was for two reasons. First of all it was found that the Advocate who filed the application did not hold vakalat in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted that it is an error which had led to entertainment of such an impression by the Family Court for the sake of the argument. We will accept the same that the said ground may not be sufficient to justify the order of dismissal. 2. The Family Court further found that the amendment sought to be incorporated is without any bona fides or merits. The Family Court felt that it was not necessary hence to permit O.P(F.C) No.3200 of 2011-R 2 the amendment. The Family Court took note of the fact that there was an order passed by this Court directing expeditious disposal of the said O.P(HMA) No.1196 of 2008. 3. We have been taken through the nature of averments sought to be introduced by the amendment. Less said about the bona fides of the proposed amendment, the better. Primarily what is sought to be incorporated by the amendment is the allegation that the wife, after the marriage – to be precise, 4 days' prior to marriage, had invited the prospective husband to go to her house and have sexual relationship with her. The Family Court did not think it proper, necessary or just to permit the amendment. We are in complete agreement with the Family Court. We are, at any rate, not satisfied that the extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction available to us under Article 227 of the Constitution can or ought to be invoked to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court. 4. This original petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) rtr/