IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2009 / 27TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 6217 of 2008(M) ------------------------- OP.1047/2005 of FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ SABU, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. LATE KARUNAKARAN, KARTHIKA BHAVAN, KALAVAMKODAM P.O., VAYALAR EAST VILLAGE, CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE SRI.B.PRAMOD RESPONDENT: -------------------- VIJAYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, W/O. LATE KARUNAKARAN, 'KARTHIKA', UZHUVA MURI, VAYALAR EAST VILLAGE, CHERTHALA. ADV. SMT.C.G.BINDU SMT.C.G.AJITHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.6217 OF 2008 S ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. Petitioner is the son of the respondent. The respondent/mother has filed a petition for maintenance before the Family Court. The same, filed as early as in 2005, is pending even now before the Family Court. Trial has started. Towards the fag end of the trial, the petitioner filed an application for examination of four witnesses. First is the father- in-law of the writ petitioner. Second is the daughter of the respondent herein, the claimant. Third is the husband of the said daughter and fourth is another son of the respondent. 2. The Family Court by Exhibit P6 order turned down the prayer for examination of these four witnesses. The Family Court took note of the fact that the only question to be determined is whether the claimant has means to maintain herself and whether the respondent, ie., the petitioner herein has capacity to provide such maintenance. The court below took the view that for resolution of these controversies, it is not W.P.(C)No.6217/08 -2- necessary to examine the witnesses cited by the petitioner herein. Accordingly, the Family Court proceeded to pass the impugned order. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that reasonable opportunity has been denied to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contends that the Family Court had seen through the game of the petitioner to delay and protract the proceedings. The witnesses cited are in no way crucially relevant to the issues before the Family Court. If the claimant has any properties or source of income, that can be proved otherwise and it is not necessary to parade all these witnesses before court for proof of that fact. A perusal of the nature of the witnesses cited must convince this Court that there is absolutely no bona fides in the petition and the transparent intention is to prolong and protract the proceedings, it is contended. 4. We must alertly note that we are called upon to invoke and exercise the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The crucial question to W.P.(C)No.6217/08 -3- be decided is whether the impugned order results in failure or miscarriage of justice. We would not like to express more, but we feel convinced that the discretion exercised by the learned Judge of the Family Court in turning down the prayer for summoning and examining the four witnesses referred to in Exhibit P5 is absolutely justified and does not at any rate warrant interference by invoking our jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. We note that the petition for maintenance by the aged mother has been pending from 2005 and the trial has already commenced. We deem it necessary to direct the Family Court, Alappuzha to ensure that O.P.No.1047/05 is disposed of as expeditiously as possible – at any rate, within a period of 30 days from the date on which a copy of this judgment is placed before the Family Court by advancing the case, if it be necessary. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed with the above directions. 6. Handover copy of this judgment to the learned counsel for the respondent for immediate production before the Family W.P.(C)No.6217/08 -4- Court. Compliance shall be reported to this Court by the Family Court. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn