IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 6TH ASWINA 1933 OP (FC).No. 3079 of 2011(R) ------------------------------------- OP.882/2009 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER(S):/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------- ANISH JACOB PUNNEN, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.LATE P.J.PUNNEN, PULIKOTIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.2, LANDS DOWN PARK, PULAYANARKOTTA,MEDICAL COLLEGE PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 031. BY ADVS. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR SRI.JAYAN V.EAPEN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------- RINKU JACOB, AGED 37 YEARS, D/O.DR.GEORGE JOHN, KALLUPALAM HOUSE, BAKER HILLS, KOTTAYAM-686 001. THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DS OP (FC).No. 3079 of 2011(R) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXHIBIT-P1. A TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN O.P.NO.882/2009 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P2. A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CMP NO.1532/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JFCM COURT-III, KOTTAYAM DATED 18.3.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE DS THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ----------------------------------- O.P(FC).No.3079 OF 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 28th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. 1.The petitioner is the respondent in an application for divorce filed by the wife. We went through Ext.P1, which is the copy of the divorce petition. It contains allegations of having entrusted the husband with funds that would represent the share of the bride in her parental property and also that she wore a particular quantity of gold ornaments. There is an allegation in Ext.P1 of demand of dowry after marriage. The husband filed an interlocutory application before the family court seeking that action may be taken against the wife and her parents for having involved in offences punishable under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. That did not find favour of the family court. The petitioner, thereafter, filed another complaint before the Judicial OPFC.3079/11 2 Magistrate of the First Class-III, Kottayam. He now claims that proceedings in the divorce petition be stayed pending enquiry and consideration, including adjudication of the alleged crime, of which, he made a complaint in the form of Ext.P2 as C.M.P.No.1532/11 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Kottayam. 2.We have gone through Ext.P2. We do not want to say anything about that since we think that the said matter is listed only for enquiry by the Magistrate. This means, apart from other things, that the proceedings in that case is at the primitive stage. 3.On the facts and circumstances, we find no ground to hold that the divorce proceedings instituted by the wife on the ground of cruelty on different counts, including on the plea of alleged demand for dowry, may be forced to wait till the OPFC.3079/11 3 completion of the procedures and process on Ext.P2 complaint of the husband. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed in limine. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR, Judge. kkb.3/10.