IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2011 / 3RD ASHADHA 1933 OP (FC).No. 1953 of 2011(R) --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13/05/2010 IN IA 1087/2010 IN OP.65/2009 of FAMILY COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------------ DR.ROY VIJAYAN AGED 44 YEARS,S/O.DR.N.VIJAYAN,"PRASANNA" PARAYANCHERI,MAVOOR ROAD, CALICUT-16 BY ADV. SRI.JAGAN ABRAHAM M. GEORGE & SHRI P.G. PRAMOD. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ LAKSHMI KARTHIKEYAN,AGED 35 YERAS D/O.KARITHIKEYAN, "SRI GOVINDAM" AYYAPANKAVU, KOCHI-18 BY SMT. SUMATHI DANDAPANI (SENIOR) & ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN O.P.(FC).NO.1953 OF 2011 R PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO.1087/2010 DATED 08/03/2010. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 20/5/09 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/05/2010 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. CERTIFICATE DATED 23.6.2011 ISSUED BY FR. VARGHESE PUDUSSERY CMI, Ph.D., DIRECTOR, SANTHWANA, CHITTOOR ROAD, KACHERIPADY, KOCHI-682 018. //TRUE COPY// PS TO JUDGE K.M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. ----------------------------------------- O.P.(FC).NO. 1953 OF 2011 R ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th June, 2011 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. Petitioner calls in question Ext.P3 order. By Ext.P3, the request made by the petitioner to refer the petitioner and the respondent who is his wife, for counselling before an expert professional counselor in any of the four centres mentioned therein, has been rejected. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. We interacted with the petitioner and the respondent also. Learned counsel for the petitioner would say that there is no Report of a O.P.(FC).NO.1953 OF 2011 R 2 professional as to what is the problem between the parties. 3. We must remind ourselves that the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is meant to correct jurisdictional errors and illegalities. We cannot dub the order as without jurisdiction or in excess jurisdiction or a case of failure to exercise jurisdiction. No doubt, learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that in the order it is stated that at present it may not be just, reasonable or proper to refer. The matter stands posted for evidence tomorrow. We find that the petitioner has approached this Court against the order dated 13.5.2010 only on 20.6.2011. That is also an aspect which we cannot ignore. Of course, the learned counsel for the petitioner would say that the petitioner was seeing the children and he was thinking that the things are improving and that dissuaded him from challenging the order. 4. We do not think that the petitioner has made out a case for O.P.(FC).NO.1953 OF 2011 R 3 interference with the impugned order. Accordingly, we dismiss the Original Petition. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. //True Copy//