IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 15859 of 2009(R) -------------------------- OP.633/2009 of FAMILY COURT,THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- TINTUMON K.M., S/O. MANI, KOOTTUNGAL HOUSE, NADUVATTOM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 574. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SREEDEVI A., D/O. A.G.SANKARAN, NOW AT AREEKARA PATTATH HOUSE, AVANOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 15859 of 2009-R ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The petitioner herein has come to this Court aggrieved by an interim order passed by the Family Court in a proceedings initiated before the Family Court by the respondent for a declaration that no marital relationship subsists between the parties. Other incidental reliefs are also claimed. 2. There is a prayer in the Original Petition before the Family Court and in the application for an interim direction that the petitioner herein may be restrained from “asserting any marital rights over the petitioner for seeking any reliefs emanating from his assumed status as the husband of the petitioner”. 3. That petition came up before the Family Court and by W.P.(c) No. 15859 of 2009-R -: 2 :- the impugned order – Ext.P5, the said interim relief was granted by the Family Court to the respondent herein. 4. According to the petitioner, the allegations raised against him are totally incorrect and the relief claimed and granted in the interim order is mischievous. According to the petitioner, he is legally married to the respondent under the Special Marriage Act. The marriage has been solemnised and registered under the Special Marriage Act. In these circumstances, the mischievous prayer that the petitioner should not assert any marital rights over the petitioner for seeking any relief cannot be legally sustained. 5. We find merit in the contention. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that it can only be clarified that the said order will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to approach courts of law seeking appropriate reliefs; but otherwise the order is liable to be maintained. We have discussed the matter with the learned counsel. We note that we have already disposed of W.P.(Cri) No.226/09 for issue of a writ of habeas corpus, between the parties. Our attempts to persuade the parties to come to a settlement has not borne fruit. The parties submit that they shall make use of the forum available before the Family Court to explore the possibilities of settlement. W.P.(c) No. 15859 of 2009-R -: 3 :- 6. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that it is not necessary to keep this writ petition pending before this Court any longer. Appropriate orders can be passed. 7. In the result, this writ petition is allowed in part. It is made clear that Ext.P5 order will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies through courts/Tribunals or contesting proceedings pending before or to be initiated before courts. No costs. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- M.C. Hari Rani (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge