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 18TH MARCH 2010 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 3110 of 2010(R) ------------------------- OP.320/2008 of FAMILY COURT, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER : --------------- N.P.ARUN KUMAR, S/O. LATE P.BHARATHAN AGED 35 YEARSM POUTHIYA PURAYIL HOUSE THALAP PO.KANNUR, REP BY HIS BROTHER AND PA HOLDER SRI.N.P.ANIL KUMAR, PUTHIYA PURAYIL HOUSE THALAP PO, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED RESPONDENT: --------------- SARITHA B.G, D/O.BALAKRISHNAN AGED 26 YEARS, RIHAJ MAHAL QUARTERS, THAZHECHOVVA PO, KANNUR-18. ADV. SMT.DAISY A.PHILIPOSE FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 3110 of 2010-R ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The writ petitioner before us is the husband. He is the petitioner in an application for divorce pending before the Family Court, Kannur. He has filed the application for divorce on the ground of cruelty, it is submitted. That petition was filed on 15/5/08. The matter stood posted to 26/10/09 finally for filing a counter statement, it is submitted. On that date the counter statement was not filed. It was filed only on 27/10/09, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner was not aware of the filing of the counter statement. The matter came up again for hearing on 9/11/09 and on that date the case was listed for trial to 28/12/09. The petitioner made efforts to get a copy of the counter statement and it is W.P.(C) No. 3110 of 2010 -: 2 :- submitted that he was served with a copy of the statement on 9/11/09. On going through that counter statement, the petitioner, it is submitted, for the first time, came to know that certain crucial documents allegedly executed by the respondent are being denied by the respondent. The matter stood listed for trial to 28/12/09. In these circumstances, the petitioner filed Exts.P7 and P8 applications on 24/12/09 to get the disputed documents referred to the expert for opinion on the genuineness of the signatures. The petitioner also prayed that the respondent may be directed to furnish standard writings. These petitions were dismissed by the Family Court by the impugned orders - Exts.P1 and P2, mainly on the ground that the applications are belated. 2. Aggrieved by Exts.P1 and P2 orders, the petitioner has now come before this Court with a prayer that this Court may be pleased to invoke the jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution. The learned counsel submits that the expert's opinion on the genuineness of those documents (copies of those documents are produced as Exts.P4 and P5 before us) is essential for an effective and proper resolution of the controversy in the O.P. The learned counsel contends that the learned Judge of the Family Court was totally wrong in assuming W.P.(C) No. 3110 of 2010 -: 3 :- that the applications are belated. The sequence of events narrated above must convince the Court that there was no delay whatsoever in the applications being filed by the petitioner. 3. Notice was given to the respondent. The respondent has entered appearance through counsel. Though it was suggested that the parties shall now settle the matter, no such settlement has been reached. 4. The short question to be considered is whether Exts.P1 and P2 orders warrant interference in the interests of justice. There can be no doubt that Exts.P4 and P5 are the crucial relevant documents, the authenticity of which has to be ascertained for a proper disposal of the case. The learned counsel for the respondent/wife submits that the respondent does not admit Exts.P4 and P5 documents and the respondent has no objection in Exts.P7 and P8 applications being allowed now. 5. We are satisfied that the ground for rejection of the applications in the impugned orders - Exts.P1 and P2, is not correct or justified. The request of the petitioner to get the authenticity of Exts.P4 and P5 ascertained by reference to an expert cannot be said to be belated in the circumstances that we have narrated. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that W.P.(C) No. 3110 of 2010 -: 4 :- Exts.P1 and P2 orders do deserve and warrant interference. 6. In the result: (a) This writ petition is allowed. (b) The impugned orders - Exts.P1 and P2 are set aside. (c) Exts.P7 and P8 applications are allowed as agreed and the court below is directed to forward Exts.P4 and P5 documents to the expert for opinion as requested in Exts.P7 and P8 applications along with standard/specimen writings after obtaining the same. (d) The parties shall suffer their respective costs. 7. In the circumstances of this case, we direct the Family Court to dispose of O.P. as expeditiously as possible. 8. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge