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 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 20658 of 2009(R) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.1756 & 1757/2009 IN OP.953/2008 of FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- BABU.M.K,AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.LAT KANDANKORAN,PULLOOT.P.O,NARAYANAMANGALAM, KODUNGALLUR,THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHARAM.P RESPONDENT(S): --------------- RATHI.P.P,AGED 33 YEARS,D/O.PARAMU, PARAPPURATH,LE-37 QUARTERS,NEAR REGIONAL RESEARCH LAB,MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS,KOZHIKODE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARIRANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.(C).No.20658 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of July 2009 J U D G M E N T BASANT,J The petitioner is the husband and the respondent is the wife. The wife had initiated proceedings for divorce as early as in 2008 on the ground of cruelty, desertion and adultery. That petition was admitted. Efforts for conciliation did not succeed. The matter was posted before the Family Court for adjudication. Steps were complete. The case was posted for trial to 17/7/2009. 2. The petitioner/husband, at that juncture, filed a petition on 10/7/2009 claiming restitution of conjugal rights. He followed up that with a petition that the two cases - one for divorce filed by the wife and the other one belatedly filed by him for restitution of conjugal rights may be taken up together for consideration. 3. The learned Judge of the Family Court alertly applied his mind, we must say, and opined that the subsequent petition filed on 10/7/2009 at a stage when the petition for divorce stood posted for trial to 17/7/2009 is a transparent and naked attempt to prolong and protract the proceedings for divorce. The application for joint trial was not allowed. That prayer was rejected. Claiming to be aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has come to this court with a W.P.Crl/Mat.Appeal No. 2 prayer to invoke the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the impugned order. 4. We must say that we are least impressed by the contentions of the petitioner. We find merit in the approach of the court below that Ext.P2 petition for restitution was filed as a part of an attempt to protract the proceedings in the divorce petition. We do not think that any prejudice is likely to result. The petitioner has the liberty to advance all his contentions in the petition for divorce and the relevant findings thereon will operate the res judicata later when the petition for restitution for conjugal rights is taken up for consideration. In any view of the matter, we are satisfied that the dismissal of the prayer for a joint trial has not resulted by any prejudice or injustice to the petitioner. We are not persuaded to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. This petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARIRANI, JUDGE) jsr W.P.Crl/Mat.Appeal No. 3 W.P.Crl/Mat.Appeal No. 4 W.P.Crl/Mat.Appeal No. 5 R.BASANT & M.C.HARIRANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 18/06/2009