IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 14TH MAGHA 1932 OP (FC).No. 491 of 2011(R) ------------------------------------ I.A.No.2800/10 in OP.255/2010 of FAMILY COURT, MALAPPURAM .................... PETITIONER (S): ----------------------- OWAIS ASHARAF SAYYED AIDROUSI, S/O.ASHARAF SAIDU HYDROSI, CHERKKARA PADUVINGAL VEEDU, 'ALHYDROSIYA', PATTIKKAD P.O, MUDIKODE VILLAGE, PANANCHERY PANCHAYATH, THRISSUR, REPRSENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, HUREIZ ASHARAF SAYYED AIDROUSI. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ RAFKHAN BEEVI, S/O.MUSTHAF THANGAL, PUTHIYAMALIYAKKAL VEEDU, PERINTHALMANNA P.O., PERINTHALMANNA AMSOM DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, PIN-679 322. BY ADV.SRI.P.VENUGOPAL THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ O.P.(FC) No.491 of 2011-R ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 3rd day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i) to direct the Family Court, Malappuram not to pass final judgment in O.P.No.255/2010 until the petitioner is issued with a copy of the order which is passed in Exhibit P11 petition and until the petitioner gets a reasonable opportunity to challenge the same. ii) to direct the Family Court, Malappuram to pass orders on Exhibit P11 forthwith and to defer the passing of final judgment in O.P.No.255/2010 until a copy thereof is furnished to the petitioner.” 2. Petitioner is the respondent in O.P.255/2010 on the file of the Family Court, Malappuram. The respondent wife has filed the OP claiming recovery of gold ornaments having the value of Rs.13,30,000/- and cash to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- from the petitioner. According to the petitioner, Ext.P3 is the written acknowledgment of the respondent stating the return of gold ornaments belonging to her. The respondent denied it in her chief examination and cross examination. Petitioner filed application to send the writing to a OPFC 491/2011 -2- handwriting expert. The Court passed Ext.P7 order dismissing the petition. That order was challenged in OP 158/2011. This Court rendered Ext.P8 judgment wherein the petitioner was permitted to examine the mother. It was observed that the Family Court after examination of petitioner's mother is completed will be free to take a decision in regard to the question as to whether the writing in Ext.P3 should be referred to a handwriting expert. According to the petitioner, thereafter the petitioner examined the mother. The mother stated that she has seen the respondent write in Ext.P3 and that the gold ornaments were returned. Thereafter petitioner filed applications to advance the hearing of the case, to re-open the evidence and also to send the matter to a handwriting expert. The applications to advance the hearing and to re-open the evidence were allowed. Ext.P11 I.A which is an application for sending the matter to a handwriting expert stands posted for orders along with the OP for passing judgment. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.P.Venugopal, the learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the respondent on whom the copy of the OP has been served as directed by this Court. 4. We had permitted the petitioner to examine his mother. The mother was examined. Going by the averments in the OP the mother has given deposition in terms of the petitioner's case that OPFC 491/2011 -3- Ext.P3 contains the handwriting of the respondent and that she saw the gold ornaments being returned. In Ext.P8 judgment we had only stated that the Family Court will be free to take a decision in regard to the question of referring the matter to a handwriting expert. In fact, no orders has been passed as such. It is for the Family Court to decide the issue. In such circumstances, we do not see any reason why we should interfere with this matter in exercise of our power under Article 227 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Original Petition fails, and it is dismissed. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS