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 28TH JULY 2011 / 6TH SRAVANA 1933 OP (FC).No. 2428 of 2011(R) --------------------------- OP.827/2008 of FAMILY COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER/1ST PETITIONER --------------------------------------------- C.SHYLAJA, D/O. CHANDRAN, THERUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MELEPURAM (PO), OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------- G.CHANDRAN @ CHANDRASEKHARAN, S/O.GOVINDAN, RESIDING AT 18 C, RAILWAY QUARTERS OOTY, NILGIRI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU-643 001. THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF PETITION DTD.2.12.2008. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER DTD.20.7.2009. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF I.A.1879/11 DTD.7/7/2011 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF COUNTER IN I.A.1879/10 DTD.14.7.2011. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.1879/10 DTD.22.7.2011. TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- OP(FC) No.2428 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th July, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J The petitioner is the first among the two petitioners in the proceedings before the Family Court from which this Original Petition arises. The respondent is her father. Her youngest sister is the second petitioner before the court below. 2. Going by the pleadings before the court below, the respondent had a second relationship and a son through it and had thus kept away from his daughters and wife - their mother. Ultimately, the daughters sued the father for what they claim as support for marriage expenses. While it may be part of maintenance to provide for reasonable support for the marriage expenses, we do not intend to express anything as to whether the claim made is in terms of any such legal liability of the father, having regard to the extent of the claim which is stated to be Rs.15 lakhs. O.P.(FC)No.2428 of 2011 2 3. During the course of trial, the evidence was closed and the case was posted for hearing. Then, the first petitioner wanted to produce a compact disk and an album of photographs probably to show that as a bride, she was clad with ornaments. The Family Court took the view that the request was belated and accordingly, rejected the application. 4. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, examining the jurisdictional error, if any, or illegality in the impugned order, we see nothing. This is because the matter of re-opening evidence and permission to admit documents and other evidence is part of the activities of the trial court during the course of its proceedings. Even if it had passed a wrong order on the facts and circumstances of the case, that would not generate sufficient jurisdictional foundation for us to exercise the authority under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which is essentially supervisory. We are, however, clear in our mind that this judgment would not impair the right, if any, of the petitioner to seek appropriate appellate remedies against the impugned order also, in the event of it becoming O.P.(FC)No.2428 of 2011 3 necessary for her to ultimately challenge the final judgment of the Family Court, since various provisions for admission of additional evidence, remand, moulding relief etc. would be open in appellate jurisdiction. Having found no jurisdictional error, this Original Petition is dismissed, subject to the aforesaid and without prejudice to that. SD/-THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE SD/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE css/