IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2008 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1930 Mat.Appeal.No. 440 of 2008() ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16/04/2008 IN IA 275/08 IN OP.526/1996 of FAMILY COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .................... PETITIONER: APPELLANT ------------------------ R.LILLY, W/O.T.CHARLES @, T.CHARLY, T.C7/485, CAHC, HARIJAN COLONY P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-10. BY ADV. SMT.KEERTHI SOLOMON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. K.KAMALAM, C/O.CHANDRA RAJASEKHARAN, DR.AMBADKAR KODIKKAL COLONY, ETAMUZHY P.O, NAGARCOIL, K.K.DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU. ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) FOR R1 SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR FOR R1 SMT.JALAJA THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.2100/2008 IN MAT.APPEAL No.440/2008 CLOSED. SD/-P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE SD/-T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE 23/10/2008 \\TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mat.Appeal No.440/2008-B ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2008. J U D G M E N T Raman, J. This appeal arises out of an order on I.A.No.275/2008 in O.P No.526/1996 filed by the petitioner herein. This is an application seeking examination of the second respondent as witness. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that she is the legally wedded wife of deceased Charles whereas the second respondent claimed that she is the legally wedded wife. Therefore, there is a dispute whether the petitioner is the legally wedded wife or the second respondent is the legally wedded wife. If the second respondent is not mounting the box for giving evidence in support of her case, certainly, the petitioner can put forth all possible arguments regarding the acceptability of the plea raised by the second respondent. The court below has rightly said that a party to the proceedings cannot be permitted to summon the opposite party as a witness unless there are exceptional circumstances. No such circumstances is Mat.Appeal No.440/2008 -:2:- pointed out. The question as to whether the petitioner married deceased Charles is a matter to be proved by her by adducing sufficient evidence in that regard. So is the case of the second respondent. If she is the legally wedded wife, the burden is on her to prove the same. In such a situation, we do not think there is any illegality in the impugned order warranting any interference by this Court. The Mat.Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (P.R. Raman, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms