IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2009 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 19240 of 2008(S) -------------------------- OP.320/2008 of FAMILY COURT, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- REHENAS A., AGED 29, S/O.A.HAMEED, BHASHA COTTAGE, P.O.THANA, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- N.P.ARUN KUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.LATE P.BHARATHAN, PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, THALAP P.O., KANNUR - 2. ADV. SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED FOR ADDL.R2 SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * W.P.C.No.19240 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March 2009 J U D G M E N T BASANT,J The petitioner has been arrayed as the 2nd respondent in a petition filed by the sole respondent herein claiming divorce against his wife on the ground of cruelty. The petitioner has come to this court now with the contention that proceedings have been initiated against him vexatiously. He is not a necessary party to the proceedings for divorce pending between the respondent and his wife. Proceedings initiated against him are vexatious and a clear abuse of the process of court. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may be invoked to quash the proceedings for divorce initiated by the respondent against his wife in so far as the petitioner is concerned. 2. Notice was ordered to the respondent. The respondent has entered appearance through counsel. The learned counsel for the respondent makes an unambiguous stipulation that the respondent does not seek any relief against the petitioner herein in O.P.No.320/2008 pending before the Family Court, Kannur. No W.P.C.No.19240/08 2 monetary relief is claimed against him. It is also unambiguously stipulated and conceded that a decree for divorce is not claimed on the ground of adultery. Divorce is claimed by the respondent from his wife solely on the ground of cruelty, submits the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits in the light of that unambiguous stipulation, there is absolutely no justification in compelling the petitioner to continue on the party array in O.P.No.320/08. If there is an allegation of adultery and divorce is claimed on the ground of adultery, then only the petitioner will be a necessary party. But inasmuch as it is clearly conceded that divorce is not claimed on the basis of adultery and no relief whatsoever is claimed against the petitioner, proceedings in O.P.No.320/08 in so far as it relates to the petitioner is concerned may be quashed, prays the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the presence of the petitioner on the party array would help the respondent to establish his ground of cruelty with felicity. It is easier for him to establish the ground of cruelty if the respondent is present in the party array, contends the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. We are afraid, that the said reason is not sufficient to justify the arraying of the petitioner herein as a respondent in the W.P.C.No.19240/08 3 matrimonial proceedings for divorce pending between the respondent herein and his wife. We find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that proceedings in O.P.No.320/08 in so far as it relates to the petitioner is unnecessary and amounts to abuse of process of the court. 5. In the result, a) This writ petition is allowed. b) Proceedings in O.P.No.320/08 in so far as it relates to the petitioner herein is hereby quashed. c) It is however made clear that this order will not in any way affect the claim for divorce of the respondent herein against his wife staked in O.P.No.320/08 pending before the Family Court, Kannur. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent prays that there may be a direction for expeditious disposal of O.P.No.320/08. Needless to say, every endeavour must be made by the Family Court, Kannur to dispose of O.P.No.320/08 as expeditiously as possible. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jsr W.P.C.No.19240/08 4 W.P.C.No.19240/08 5 R.BASANT &C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 06/02/2009