IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2011 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32730 of 2011(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GOKUL(MINOR)AGED 17 YEARS,REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER REKA,W/O.DR.P.V.VIJAYAKRISHNAN, PERUMBAYIL HOUSE,"SREERAGAM"VIDYANAGAR,NELLAPPILLY P.O.CHITUR TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE TAHSILDAR,CHITUR TALUK, CHITUR,PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678001. * ADDL.R2 DR.P.V.VIJAYAKRISHNAN, S/O.VENUGOPAL, PERUMBAYIL HOUSE, P.O.NADUVILKARA, VADANAPPILLY, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT 9.12.2011 IN IA.19725/11) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC.32730/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT-P1:TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER FOR DIVORCE O.P.616 OF 2009 DATED 12/05/2009. EXT-P2:TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 28/11/2011 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. // True Copy // P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 32730 of 2011 M ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 14th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P2, an order passed by the first respondent, rejecting the application made by the petitioner for a Non Creamy Layer certificate. In this order dated 28.11.2011, reason assigned for rejection of the request is that the petitioner's father is a Doctor and that, in terms of the Government Order dated 08.09.1993, Doctor is included in the Non Creamy Layer category No.4. It is also stated that the divorce proceedings between the father and mother of the petitioner is only pending. 2. In the writ petition it is alleged that the petitioner's father, the additional second respondent herein, who is a Doctor, is residing separately since 2008, without any connection whatsoever with the family. It is also stated that the proceedings pending before the Family Court, Thrissur W.P.(C) No.32730/2011 : 2 : mentioned in Ext.P2 order is M.C.No.312/2010 and that as per the orders passed by the Family Court, `2,000/- is paid to the petitioner, `1,500/- is paid to his younger sister and `4,000/- is paid to their mother, towards monthly maintenance. In other methods, what is attempted to be demonstrated is that, though for technical purposes, additional second respondent continues to be the husband of their mother and father of the petitioner, still the family is a totally broken one and that apart from the monthly maintenance being paid, no other care or protection is extended by the additional second respondent. 3. Counsel appearing for the additional second respondent also confirms the separation of the family, pendency of the proceedings and payment of maintenance charges. He also confirms that there is no possibility of re-union. 4. In such circumstances, I am inclined to think that it was too technical a view that has been taken in Ext.P2 and if W.P.(C) No.32730/2011 : 3 : such a view is upheld, that will only result in injustice to the petitioner. In such circumstances, I cannot afford Ext.P2 and the said order is, therefore, quashed. It is directed that, on the production of a copy of this judgment, the first respondent will pass fresh orders on the application made by the petitioner, duly adverting to the observations in this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/14/12 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge