IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 OP (FC).No. 3625 of 2011(R) --------------------------- OP.953/2006 of FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD .................... PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. SUJITH, S/O. GOPINATHAN, AGED 40, CHARUVILA VEETIL, THETTIKULAM MOONGODE, OTTUR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. GOPINATHAN, CHARUVILA VEETIL, THETTIKULAM MOONGODE, OTTUR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:- ---------------------------------------------------- 1. JIJI, D/O. SASIDHARAN, REEJA BHAVAN, VENKODE, PALAYAMKUNNU, AYIROOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 304. 2. ARJUN, S/O. SUJITH, REEJA BHAVAN, VENKODE, PALAYAMKUNNU, AYIROOR VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER JIJI, D/O. SASIDHARAN, -DO- -DO- PIN-695 304. THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE O.P. NO. 581/2006 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF O.P. NO. 953/06 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO. 28585/06. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION IN EXT.P2. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO.1813/11 IN O.P. NO.953/06 OF FAMILY COURT, NEDUMANGAD. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. O.P. (F.C.) NO. 3625/2011 THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(F.C.) No. 3625 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. The first respondent is the wife of the 1st petitioner. The 2nd respondent is their child. The second petitioner is the first petitioner's father. 2. The wife and child sued the husband for maintenance and return of amounts including certain claim towards gold ornaments etc. The plea of the husband and his father, among other things, appears to be that the present proceedings are hit by principles referable to Order II Rule 2 CPC since the earlier proceedings was, allegedly, withdrawn without obtaining leave of court. The plea in this writ petition is that the said issue ought to be decided as a preliminary issue as to maintainability. 3. For one thing, whether the two proceedings are of the same nature and whether the pleadings have anything common etc. will have to be determined with reference to facts. It is to be remembered that it includes the claim for maintenance of a child. That is not something of which the mother could have O.P. No.3625/2011 -:2:- withdrawn the proceedings, even if it be. Be that as it may, we see that the original proceedings was instituted before the Family Court in the year 2006. The object sought to be achieved by the Family Court Act, 1984 includes expeditious disposal. We are told that the court below has a crowded hoard of litigations. Requiring courts to hear interlocutory matters rather than proceed with the final hearing would further drag on such litigations which affect the families as institutions. We do not find any requirement to exercise the supervisory visitorial jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the case in hand. All that we may do is to request the learned Judge of the Family Court to, if possible, expedite the final disposal. Ordered accordingly. sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE. rv O.P. No.3625/2011 -:3:- B.P. RAY, J. ----------------------------------------------------------- O.P.No. 13887 of 2002 ------------------------------------------------------------- O.P. No.3625/2011 -:4:- Dated this the 20th day of September, 2011. JUDGMENT