IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2011 / 3RD BHADRA 1933 OP (FC).No. 2314 of 2011(R) --------------------------- OP.161/2009 of FAMILY COURT, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ THANKAMANI.K.P,AGED 45 YEARS, D/O.THAMBAI,AR SERVICE CENTRE,NEAR CLOCK TOWER, RAILWAY STATION ROAD,KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE SMT.CISSY MATHEWS RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. V.V.VIDHYANANDAN,AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.KORAN,AYSHA COMPLEX QUARTERS,KARIPODY MARKET ROAD,KASARAGOD-671121. 2. A.C.DINESHAN,AGED 52 YEARS,S/O.NANU MASTER,SALES TAX OFFICER,VADAKKUMBAD.P.O, THALASSERY,KANNUR DISTRICT-670330. ADV. SRI.K.ANAND FOR R1 THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.FC No.2314/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 3.3.2010. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 6.9.2010. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 15.10.2010. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF IA No.1024 OF 2010. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF IA No.1025 of 2010. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22.6.2011. TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- O.P.(FC)No.2314 of 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th August, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J The petitioner is the first respondent's wife. The first respondent sued the wife for divorce. That was withdrawn on consent agreeing that the petitioner and the first respondent would file an application for divorce on mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Such a petition was filed. That stood over for the gestation period of six months. When it was taken up thereafter, the wife withdrew her consent on the allegation that the husband had not kept up some offers made in connection with the decision to go for divorce on mutual consent. Thus, the application under Section 13B was dismissed. The husband thereupon moved an application to revive the earlier petition for divorce filed by him alleging that the wife is in adultery with the co-respondent in that proceeding. The Family Court has, by the impugned order, reopened the O.P.(FC)No.2314 of 2011 2 proceedings in that matter which is O.P.No.161/2009. 2. We had, at the time of issuing notice in this matter on 19th July 2011, tried to provoke the parties to go for a round of mediation. That did not work out. Obviously, in the matters under the Family Court's Act, 1984, the learned judge of the Family Court would take recourse to such proceedings as are provided for and contemplated to find out whether there could be a decision on settlement, either way. 3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner/wife before us tried to say that the earlier order closing the proceedings in O.P.No.161/2009 was final and cannot be reopened, an order permitting withdrawal of suit on a particular fact situation and premise can always be revoked by the Court which granted leave for withdrawal. This is part of inherent power of the Court which is also recognised in Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A Court of justice will necessarily carry with it, all powers to prevent injustice. On the fact situation, we also find formidable support for this view in the decision of the Apex Court in Jet Plywood Pvt.Ltd. v Madhukar Nowlakha (2006(2) KLT O.P.(FC)No.2314 of 2011 3 624(S.C.). For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this case. Hence this O.P. fails and is accordingly dismissed. sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE /true copy/ P.S.TO JUDGE css/26/8/11