IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31368 of 2009(R) -------------------------- OP.124/2009 of FAMILY COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... PETITIONER: --------------- MARIAMMA SUNNY,D/O.LATEG.EAPEN SUNNY, MEMADOM(H),MATHILBHAGOM,THIRUVALLA VILLATE, THIRUVALLA TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA,NOW RESIDING AT NO.11,REGAT LABROOY,MERDEKA GARDENS,IPOH 30100, PERAK,MALAYSIA,REP.THROUGH HER P/A HOLDER RAJENDRA PRADAD K.P.PALLIPPPURATH VEEDU,VENPALA,KUTTOOR BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENT: --------------- T.J. CHACKO, THOTTATHIL PUTHENVEEDU, POOVATHUR P.O. KOIPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.31368 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. Against the petitioner, the respondent/her husband has filed an Original Petition for divorce before the Family Court, Thiruvalla. She has now received notice to appear before the Court on 18.11.2009. According to the petitioner, she is employed abroad at Malaysia and it is impossible for her to be physically present before the Family Court on 18.11.2009. In these circumstances, she is making arrangements to appear before that court through a power of attorney holder to appear through counsel and contest the proceedings. But before so appearing before the court and making that request to the court, the petitioner has come running to this Court apprehending adverse orders on 18.11.2009. 2. What is her apprehension? Why has she not waited for the court to pass appropriate orders on 18.11.2009? According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner will not be able to appear in person before the Family Court, till May, 2010. Such a request is unlikely to be accepted by the learned Judge considering the past experience of the counsel in that court. This is the short reason W.P.(C)No.31368/09 -2- to explain the conduct of the petitioner running to this Court with this petition. 3. We do not find any merit in this Writ Petition. We will not assume that the Family Court would be unreasonable and will not pass appropriate orders when a representation is made about the physical inability of the petitioner employed abroad to appear before that Court on 18.11.2009.. The petitioner must make appropriate application. The Family Court must certainly consider such application and pass fair, reasonable and just orders on such application. We will not lightly assume that such orders will not be passed. We are in these circumstances satisfied that no specific directions are necessary in this Writ Petition now. Needless to say, if the petitioner is aggrieved by any such order, the option of the petitioner to come before this Court later, shall remain unfettered by the dismissal of this Writ Petition. 4. With the above observation, this Writ Petition is dismissed. 5. Hand over copy of this judgment to the learned counsel for the petitioner. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn