IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2011 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1933 OP (FC).No. 3527 of 2011(R) ------------------------------------- OP.1026/2007 of FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER: 1. SHEEJA THAHA, D/O.SHAMSHAD BEGAM, BLUE STAR, KIZHAKKEPURAM P.O., MYLAVILA, AYIROOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKIL TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. HAJIRA THAHA, D/O.SHEEJA THAHA(MINOR) AGED 11 YEARS, BLUE STAR, KIZHAKKEPURAM P.O., MYLAVILA, AYIROOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKIL TALUK, TRIVANDRUM, (MINOR REP.BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, THE FIRST PETITIONER). BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE SMT.MINI GOPINATH RESPONDENT: THAHA, S/O.ABDUL SALAM, K.P.HOUSE, KURAKKANNI, VARKALA VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKIL TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST-695001. THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN WPCR 3527/2011 EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OP (FC) IN OP 1026/07 EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT TO EXT. P1 EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN IA 752/11 IN OP 1026/07 EXT. P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 25.4.2011 IN IA 752/2011 IN OP 1026/07 /TRUE COPY/ Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & C.T.Ravikumar, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- O.P.(FC)No.3527 of 2011 R ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. This writ petition is filed invoking the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order passed in the course of trial of a family litigation instituted in the year 2007. While the petitioner applied for summoning certain additional witnesses, learned Judge of the Family Court has given reasons for refusing that application. Refusal of the court to admit evidence, summon witnesses etc. may be relevant in appellate jurisdiction. Having regard to the parameters of appellate jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, which provides for a wholesome appeal, we are not persuaded to think that these are matters for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution, that too, during the course of trial by a court of special jurisdiction. We also recall the avowed objects of the Family Courts Act and the provisions therein. The hope is to annihilate delay. OPFC 3527/2011 2 2. With the above, we are persuaded by the learned counsel for the petitioners to say that the court below, while deciding the matter finally, will do so untrammelled by anything stated in the impugned order. He expresses apprehension that the court below appears to have been made certain comments in the impugned order, touching the merits of the rival contentions. In the result, we dismiss this writ petition, however, clarifying that the court below will decide the matter finally, untrammelled by anything stated in the impugned order or in this judgment. We also preserve all rights of the petitioners herein to raise necessary grounds in any appeal that may become necessary in the event of their losing the litigation before the court below. (Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge) (C.T.Ravikumar, Judge) tkv/31.10