IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2009 / 26TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1573 of 2009(S) ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA.5336/2008 IN OP.883/2005 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.A. MARGARET, AGED 38 YEARS, D/O. LATE ACHO, THYKOOTTATHIL HOUSE, LALSALAM ROAD, PONNURUNNI. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): --------------- E.SEBASTIAN @ BABU, S/O. LATE VARKEY, ELANJIKKAL HOUSE, PERUMPILLI, NJARAKKAL P.O. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.1573 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 16th January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam, in I.A.No.5336 of 2008. That interlocutory application was filed for summoning the register maintained in the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer where the respondent is said to have been employed, probably to prove the fact that he had attended the office all-through during the period when his wife was in the hospital. The main original petition is filed for return of gold ornaments and money. In that a defence was set up for having spend some amount towards the hospital expenditure. Earlier, at the instance of the petitioner, the evidence was re-opened. Subsequent only the present application is filed. Prima facie, we are of the view that as the fact in issue being the return of money and gold ornaments, whether the respondent was actually employed or not may not W.P.(C) No.1573/2009 2 directly be in issue unless there is no other evidence of having spend the money. Anyway, it is in the realm of appreciation and thereafter it could not be said in one way or the other. In this situation, however, we do not think, the Family Court proceedings should be interdicted by exercising the extra ordinary jurisdiction. After the trial is over and at the time of argument, if the Family Court is convinced of the fact that the attendance of the respondent husband in the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, KSEB, Kannur, if proved, would lead to any inference in the matter of appreciating the contention with regard to the expenditure said to have been made by him towards the wife, it is open to the petitioner at that time to seek production of such documents. Without prejudice to his right to do so, we dismiss this writ petition. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. nj.