IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 15TH BHADRA 1933 OP (FC).No. 2956 of 2011(R) ---------------------------------------- ( AGAINST ORDER DATED 6/8/2011 IN CRL.M.P.348 OF 2011 IN C.M.P.NO.83 OF 2011 OF THE FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA) --------------------------- PETITIONERS ------------------------ 1. REKHA SANTHOSH, W/O.SANTHOSH KUMAR, KRISHNA KRIPA, NADUVATTOM P.O., PALLIPPAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. 2. ASHILY SANTHOSH, AGED 13 YEARS (MINOR), D/O.SANTHOSH KUMAR, KRISHNA KRIPA, NADUVATTOM P.O., PALLIPPAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. (MINOR PETITIONER IS REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND THE FIRST PETITIONER). BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF SRI.A.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, VILASSERIL PUTHUVAL, KANDALLOOR P.O., KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA-690 535. BY THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts OP(FC)NO.2956/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/11/2004 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MAVELIKKARA IN M.C.NO.25 OF 2004. P2 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 9/6/2008 EXECUTED BY THE RESPONDENT. P3 COPY OF THE CMP NO.83 OF 2011 IN MC.NO.25 OF 2004 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA. P4 COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 27/6/2011 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA IN CMP NO.83 OF 2011. P5 COPY OF THE ATTESTED COPY OF THE RECEIPT PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA. P6 COPY OF THE CRL.M.P.348 OF 2011 IN CMP NO.83 OF 2O11 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA. P7 COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 01/8/2011 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA IN CRL.M.P.348 OF 2011 IN CMP.NO.83 OF 2011. P8 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6/8/2011 PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA IN CRL.M.P.348 OF 2011 IN CMP.NO.83 OF 2011. P9 COPY OF THE OP NO.461 OF 2011 DATED 8/4/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, ALAPPUZHA. P10 COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT DATED 2/12/2008. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- O.P(FC).No.2956 OF 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 6th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. 1.The first petitioner is the wife and the second petitioner is the daughter of the respondent, who, going by the records, is an Ex-Navy pensioner. 2.It appears that petitions for different reliefs are pending before the court below. The petitioners have an order under Section 125 Cr.PC in their favour. They have, thereafter, filed a further petition for recovery of arrears due under the MC order. The respondent produced a document, which he claimed to be a receipt issued by the wife. Disputing that document, the wife wanted that to be sent for opinion of a hand-writing expert. By the impugned order, the family court deferred the issuance of any order seeking expert OPFC.2956/11 2 opinion on the document since the learned Judge found it appropriate to bring on record further material evidence and consider the issue of reference to an expert at a later stage. We find from the impugned order that the learned Judge has focused attention on the contention of the wife that she has not executed the alleged receipt and the contention of the husband that the wife is in the habit of writing in different hand-writings. These are essentially indicators that the court below is focusing appropriately on the reception of evidence. With the passage of time, if the learned Judge comes to the view that opinion of expert is to be taken about the document, that issue is also left open in the impugned order. 3.We see the anxiety of the wife, as sounded by her learned counsel quite vehemently, that the respondent appears to be in the habit of creating such documents and is trying to exclude himself from the responsibility of maintaining the OPFC.2956/11 3 wife and child and also saddling them with false allegations of having received the amount. The wife appears to be anxious to see that the husband faces the consequence of having, allegedly, fabricated documents. Obviously, that would be a matter which can be triggered only at the appropriate stage, either before the court below or otherwise, having regard to the relevant laws guiding the exercise of jurisdiction with reference to Section 340 Cr.PC. We preserve the requirement, if any, to take such procedures. 4.Subject to the aforesaid, having regard to the best interest of the second petitioner, the minor daughter aged 12 years, and also that of the first petitioner wife, we think the learned Judge of the family court has proceeded appropriately in taking the view that as of now, the matter may be considered further by recording evidence, deferring the question of referring the document to the expert. Let it OPFC.2956/11 4 be so done. The original petition is ordered accordingly, without prejudice to contentions. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.6/9.