IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 31740 of 2009(R) -------------------------- I.A.No.2864/08 in OS.211/2000 of FAMILY COURT,KOLLAM .................... PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. RAMLA.E.A, RAHIM MANZIL, NADAYARA DESOM, VARKKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. NAJU (MINOR), AGED 14 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND RAMLA.E.A, RAHIM MANZIL, NADAYARA DESOM, VARKKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU SRI.B.K.RAJAGOPAL RESPONDENT: --------------- NOUSHAD, RESIDING AT SHAMSUDHEEN MANZIL, THAZHUTHALA, KOTTIYAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.31740 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. The petitioners before us are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.211/2000 before the Family Court. The claim, inter alia, is for money. They rely on a document - an agreement dated 10.5.1998. In such document, the respondent herein is alleged to have affixed the signature in both pages. The first one is a stamp paper and the second is a plain paper. The mother of the respondent/husband is also alleged to have affixed signature in the document. Claim is staked on the basis of the recitals in the document also. In the written statement, this document is disputed. A contention is raised that the wife/claimant is misutilising a signed blank stamp paper which was available in the house. The signature in the second page of the document is forged, it is specifically alleged. The court below by the impugned order accepted the request of the respondent/husband to send the document to the Expert for comparison. The petitioners claim to be aggrieved by the impugned order. W.P.(C)No.31740/09 -2- 2. It is argued that the application is belated. It is further contended that in a criminal case between the parties there was no serious dispute or challenge against the said agreement dated 10.5.1998. The order passed at this juncture would inevitably attract delay and that would cause prejudice and hardship to the petitioners, it is submitted. 3. We have considered all the relevant aspects. Notwithstanding the delay in filing the application to send the document to the Expert, we note that the learned Judge has applied his mind to the relevant facts and had satisfied himself of the need to send the document to the Expert. It is contended that there was no dispute about the genuineness of the document raised earlier. We have probed into this contention. It is accepted that in the written statement a specific denial has been raised. Where is it that the respondent did not dispute the genuineness of the document? The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in a connected prosecution under Section 498A, this document had been produced. We wanted the counsel to bring to our notice anything available in the said criminal case W.P.(C)No.31740/09 -3- which would suggest that the genuineness of the relevant agreement dated 10.5.1998 was accepted or was at least not challenged. Nothing has been produced before us to indicate that the respondent had accepted or did not choose to challenge the genuineness of Exhibit A1 earlier. 4. We are perturbed by the prospect of delay which the impugned order would lead to. But, notwithstanding the possibility of such delay, we are not satisfied that the impugned order deserves or wants interference invoking our extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. We are in these circumstances satisfied that this Writ Petition only needs to be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there will be no useful purpose served by comparing the present signatures with the disputed signatures. Reason and logic demands that the disputed signature must be compared only with signatures which were affixed contemporaneously and at a time when this dispute had not arisen. The possibility of the respondent masquerading his signature in later documents W.P.(C)No.31740/09 -4- cannot be ruled out. We need only mention that the court below must ensure that the report of the Expert must be called for only after undisputed documents at the relevant time -prior to the disputed document is made available to the Court for perusal and comparison. We also direct the court below to ensure that the report of the Expert is secured as expeditiously as possible. If so advised, petitioners can apply for interim maintenance and appropriate orders must be passed by the court below on merits on such application also. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn