IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2009 / 4TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 17674 of 2009(R) -------------------------- OP.311/2007 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER: --------------- GRACE THIBIN, D/O.ZACHARIA, “THE ROSE BED”, THOLATH HOUSE, PAZHANJI P.O, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.MOHANAN RESPONDENT: --------------- RENJITH, S/O.VARGHESE, EERALIL HOUSE, “WHITE HOUSE”, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARIRANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.(C).No.17674 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of June 2009 J U D G M E N T BASANT,J The petitioner is the respondent in an application for divorce before the Family Court. Divorce is sought on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Pending the said proceedings, the respondent herein that is the husband/petitioner before the Family Court came to this court for a direction for expeditious disposal of the case. During the pendency of that application, there was an attempt made by the Bench to induce the parties to come to a settlement. That attempt did not succeed. The writ petition was allowed by judgment dated 30/10/2008 (Ext.P3) with a direction to the Family Court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. 2. We are informed that though the trial is in progress, the matter has not been disposed of so far. The petitioner has now come to this court with a grievance that the court below is about to receive Ext.P6 document in evidence by examining the doctor who issued the same. W.P.C No.17674/08 2 3. The learned counsel contends that such evidence has to be eschewed and excluded. What are the reasons? The learned counsel contends first of all that this court had not referred the parties to any psychiatrist; but had referred the parties only to a psychologist. The person who issued Ext.P6 is a psychiatrist and therefore that evidence should not be accepted, it is contended. It is further contended that the opinion given in Ext.P6 is not acceptable. Sufficient detailed study and examination have not been carried out before issuing Ext.P6. The learned counsel has a further contention that the doctor who issued Ext.P6 is interested and biased. Members of the family of the respondent are physicians. The author of Ext.P6 is a colleague of theirs. They belong to the same church also. For all these reasons, the contents of Ext.P6 cannot be accepted, contends the learned counsel. 4. For all these various reasons, the petitioner prays that the court below may be directed not to receive Ext.P6 in evidence and examine the author thereof as a witness. Invoking the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, such examination may be prevented. This in short is the plea. 5. We are afraid, the request cannot be accepted. We find no reason to assume that the court below shall not consider the W.P.C No.17674/08 3 admissibility and acceptability of Ext.P6 and the oral evidence if any tendered by the author of Ext.P6. Nothing has been shown to us to persuade this court to accept that Ext.P6 is inadmissible in evidence. Be that as it may, we are satisfied that no detailed consideration of even that question is necessary in this proceedings. The petitioner must raise all his objections before the court below and the court below must consider all such objections raised about admissibility and acceptability of Ext.P6 and the oral evidence to be tendered by the author of Ext.P6. 6. There is a time bound direction for disposal. We are not satisfied, in the circumstances of the case, that notwithstanding this direction, this writ petition can or ought to be entertained at this stage. The petitioner must certainly co-operate with the court below to implement the directions of this court for expeditious disposal. 7. With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed. 8. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARIRANI, JUDGE) jsr W.P.C No.17674/08 4 W.P.C No.17674/08 5 W.P.C No.17674/08 6 R.BASANT & M.C.HARIRANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 18/06/2009