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 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24812 of 2009(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ VEENA AGED 35 YEARS, D/O. CHANDRASEKHARAN, COLLEGE LECTURER, RESIDING AT PONMANI VEENA HOUSE, NO.5, M.G.NAGAR, PEROORKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695005. BY ADV. SRI.G.SUKUMARA MENON RESPONDENT: -------------------- SURESH AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, ENGINEER, BSNL, RESIDING AT MULAMOOTTIL HOUSE MANCHALLOOR, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DIST. PIN-689695. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.24812 OF 2009 R ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF AUGUST, 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. The petitioner herein is the petitioner in O.P.(HMA) No.893/08 pending before the Family court, Nedumangad. That petition is filed by the petitioner for declaration of nullity of her marriage with the respondent herein. The marriage took place on 25.1.2001. Parties are residing separately from April, 2008. Thereafter, the application for declaration of nullity has been filed on 28.7.2008. 2. Respondent has entered appearance. Counter statement has been filed. Replication has also been filed. Trial has not commenced, it is submitted. 3. At this juncture, the petitioner has come running to this Court with this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. What is her grievance? What relief does she seek? The learned counsel for the petitioner wants an early disposal of O.P.(HMA)No.893/08. Did the petitioner move the Family Court W.P.(C)No.24812/09 R -2- for such an early disposal, showing the basis and the reasons for such request? Admittedly, she has not. Why then has she come running to this Court without and before moving the Family Court for such relief? No satisfactory reasons are shown. 4. We must remind ourselves that we are called upon to invoke and exercise the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Sufficient and satisfactory reasons must certainly be shown. We are not persuaded to accept and agree that any such sufficient and satisfactory reasons have been shown to justify the direct approach made to this Court by the petitioner without and before seeking that relief from the Family Court. It is for the petitioner to move the Family Court for an out of turn expeditious disposal of her case, if there are sufficient circumstances. The parties are aged 35 years and 43 years and it is not difficult to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that an early disposal of the case will cater to the ends of justice. But, no satisfactory reasons are shown to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. W.P.(C)No.24812/09 R -3- 5. In these circumstances, this Writ Petition only deserves to be dismissed. But, we may hasten to observe that it shall be open to the petitioner to move the Family Court for an out of turn expeditious disposal of the case showing reasons. The learned Judge of the Family Court must consider the same and pass appropriate orders. Needless to say, if the petitioner's grievance remains without redressal, her option to come before this Court later, shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this Writ Petition. 6. Handover copy of this judgment to the learned counsel for the petitioner for production before the Family Court, when such application is filed. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn