IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH AUGUST 2011 / 18TH SRAVANA 1933 OP (FC).No. 2458 of 2011(R) --------------------------- OP.90/2011 of FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE .................... PETITIONER ----------------- G.S.LAL, AGED 51, S/O.GOPALAN, KOUSTHUBHA, ST.THOMAS STREET, KURIACHIRA DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REP.BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ANTONY, S/O.RAPPAI, MUYALAN HOUSE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SONIA T.S., TUTOR TECHNICIAN IN M.L.T., DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY, MEDICAL COLLEGE, CALICUT, RESIDING AT D2 QUARTERS, MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., CALICUT-673 008. ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN O.P(FC).2458/11 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION BEARINGNO.90 OF 2011 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED 31.1.2011. EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE O.P.NO.1112 OF 2011 DATED 9.6.2011 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE MC NO.42/2011 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED 31.1.2011. EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS IA.NO.1058/2011 IN OP.90/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE DATED 6.6.2011. EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN I.A.NO.1058/2011 IN OP.90/2011 DATED 13.6.2011 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE. /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- O.P(FC).No.2458 OF 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J. This original petition is instituted on account of Ext.P5 order, whereby, the family court took the view that since the respondent in the main proceedings pending before it is abroad, referring the matter for mediation will be of no purpose. Having regard to the object sought to achieved by Section 89 CPC and the relevant pointers in this regard in the Family Courts Act, including the paramount object of that legislation, we are of the view that the court has to first ascertain from both sides as to the chances of taking recourse to an ADR measure. If such a measure is open, then, the posting for mediation or other ADR modes as may be chosen by the parties can be in terms of the convenience of the parties also since the main participants in the litigation and the ultimate beneficiary of the litigation, either way, would be the family as a unit. In the case in hand, we are told that the couple have two children also. OPFC.2458/11 2 We are told by the learned counsel for the respondent wife that three rounds of counselling before the family court did not yield much result. Yet, we are inclined to think that if the parties are open for an ADR procedure, we should not stand in the way of that happening. Learned counsel for the husband says that her client would be available in India by the 21st of this month. Though learned counsel for the wife says that as of now, his client is not in a mood to take recourse to mediation, we are of the view that it would be appropriate that parties mark their appearance before the Judge of the Family Court, Kozhikode on 27.8.2011 and if the wife is willing to take recourse to mediation, the petitioner before us, the husband, shall also participate in such proceedings. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Office to communicate the order. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, Judge. kkb.11/8.