IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 2ND AUGUST 2010 / 11TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 22808 of 2010(R) ------------------------------------- OP.1119/2006 of FAMILY COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- K.S.RAJEEV, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.S.KRISHNAN THAMPI, NAMBIYADHI, PUTHIYATHURA P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.ANIL SMT.R.RAMYA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ SREEDEVI S.K., AGED 29 YEARS, "GOKULAM", HOSPITAL JUNCTION, POOVAR, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M.JOSEPH & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.22808 of 2010-R ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 2nd day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T K.M.Joseph, J. Petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “a). That a writ of mandamus or other order or direction be passed directing the Hon'ble Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to dispose of Exhibit P4 filed by the petitioner within a time to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. b). That a writ of mandamus or other be passed directing the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram to pass orders on Exhibit P7 within a time to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.” 2. This Court ordered that a report be placed. Accordingly, the Family Court has given a report. In the report it is inter alia stated as follows: “ It is true that the petitioner has filed I.A 906/2010 on 23.4.2010 seeking to include the case in the special list for trial. But the filing of that I.A was brought to my notice only on 1.6.10 and on that date I have posted that I.A to 3.7.2010 for objection of the opposite side. But on that date the opposite has not filed any objection. Hence the I.A posted for objection with N.F.T. order to 7.8.2010. The above I.A will be considered immediately after filing objection if any and will be disposed of on merit on 7.8.10 and if I am convinced that there is extreme urgency in the matter I will definitely included the O.P in the special list and will be disposed of on merit within 3 months from 7.8.2010 if both sides co-operate. WPC No.22808/2010 -2- I may further submit that out of 3560 cases the parties involved in about 75% of the cases are young couples and they used to express urgency in disposing of their cases and if the urgent matter alone is considered, time will not be available to start trial of oldest and targeted cases which will include cases pending trial for the last 17 years onwards (cases filed during the year 1993 onwards is pending for trial). Therefore, I used to give preference to the oldest cases and also the cases included in the target so as to avoid complaints by the parties and counsels appearing in the oldest cases.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is real urgency. In view of the fact that the Family Court has also stated that upon being convinced of the extreme urgency the matter will be included in the special list and dispose of within three months if both sides co-operate, we dispose of the writ petition by taking note of the report as indicated above. (K.M.JOSEPH) JUDGE. (M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) JUDGE. MS