IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 20858 of 2008(S) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17/4/2008 IN IA 526/2008 IN OP.762/2005 OF THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ YOOSAF, KOCHU VEEDU, EDAVA, EDAVA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH SMT.A.K.PREETHA RESPONDENT: ------------------- SHADINA KAMALUDEEN, PARAYIL RASHEEDA MANZIL, EDAVA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ABDUL WAHAB, CHAYAKARIVILAKATHU VEEDU, EDAVA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. ADV. SMT.K.KUSUMAM FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION I.A.NO.526/08 IN OP.NO.762/2005 FILED BY THE PETITIONERL BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGADU. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 17/4/2008 DISMISSING EXT.P1 OF THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGADU IN I.A.NO.526/08 IN OP.NO.762/2005. RESPONDENT'S EXTS: ANNEXURE-R1 COPY OF POWER OF ATTORNEY. ANNEXURE-R2 COPY OF DIVORCE DECREE. ANNEXURE-R3 COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN FILED IN THE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SINGAPORE COURT. ANNEXURE-R4 CERTIFICATE FROM BANK SHOWING THE TRNSFER OF RS.8 LAKHS TO THE PETITIONER'S ACCOUNT. ANNEXURE-R5 TRUE COPY OF OP.1613/03 OF FAMILY COURT, TRIVANDRUM (OP.762/03 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD). ANNEXURE-R6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN W.P.18473/07 OF THIS COURT. ANNEXURE-R7 TRUE COPY OF OP.2255/05 OF THE FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD. P.R.RAMAN & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C)NO.20858 OF 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November,2008 JUDGMENT Raman,J. Petitioner is the 2nd respondent in O.P.No.762/2005 filed by the wife for a decree allowing her to recover the petition A schedule money with 12% interest and also to recover an amount of Rs.20 lakhs with 12% interest thereon towards loss and damages caused to her by the husband. Petitioner herein admittedly was arrayed as the 2nd respondent in the said O.P., since the money sought to be realised from the properties belonged to respondents 1 to 3 therein. There is yet another petition filed as O.P.No.2255/2005 by the husband, who is the son of the petitioner herein, for a declaration that the notice issued by the Jamaath dated 1//6/2004 informing that the marriage conducted between the parties is invalid, is void and that she continues to be the legally wedded wife. That petition is not ready for trial. At this stage, the -2- WP(C).No.20858/2008 petitioner filed I.A.No.526/2008 for consolidation/joint trial of both the O.Ps. That was opposed by the respondent herein. The Family Court found that the nature of evidence to be adduced in both the cases is different and further the joinder of cause of action may only delay the trial of O.P.No.762/2005. Challenging the said order the present writ petition is filed. 2. We have heard the parties. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there is sufficient ground for consolidation/joint trial and it will save the time of the court and also the parties need not appear in both these cases separately. He also points out that the reliefs sought for in both these petitions are not totally unconnected. It is out of the matrimonial tie between the parties that both the causes seeking the relief as sought for have arisen. One is for damages for the cruelty meted out during that matrimonial tie and the other is for declaration filed by the husband. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Prem Lala Nahata and another v. Chandi Prasad Sikaria ((2007) 2 SCC 551). 4. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand -3- WP(C).No.20858/2008 would submit that proof affidavit has already been filed in the other O.P. A Commissioner was appointed and the case has reached an advance stage whereas the subsequent O.P. is not ripe for trial. In Prem Lala Nahata's case ((2007) 2 SCC 551) the Apex Court held that consolidation/joint trial is a process by which two or more causes or matters are by order of the court combined or united and treated as one cause or matter. The main purpose of consolidation is therefore to save costs, time and effort and to make the conduct of several actions more convenient by treating them as one action. When it appears to the court that some common question of law or fact arises in both or all the suits or that the rights to relief claimed in the suits are in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions; or that for some other reason it is desirable to make an order consolidating the suits, which gives jurisdiction to consolidate. In this case it is not shown or established that any common issue arises for consideration. In one case the husband and wife alone are parties whereas in the present case petitioner is also made a party, since the prayer is for a decree to realise money from out of the property belonged to the petitioner as well. Therefore, it -4- WP(C).No.20858/2008 cannot be said that even going by the relief sought for in both the petitions, there is any common question arises for consideration. In such circumstances, we cannot find any illegality in the order of the Family Court warranting any interference in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, we direct that since both the petitions are pending before the Family Court, in order to minimize the hardship and inconvenience to the parties, both the petitions be posted as far as possible on the same date. This will at least avoid the parties from appearing on different dates in the two petitions. With the above observation this writ petition is disposed of. P.R.RAMAN, Judge. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, Judge. kcv.