IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2010 / 26TH ASWINA 1932 OP (FC).No. 330 of 2010(R) -------------------------- OPDIV.877/2010 of FAMILY COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER ------------------------------ ANISH ANTO, AGED 29, S/O.ANTONY, MANGALATHADICHIRAYIL HOUSE, KOTHANALLOOR P.O., VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS SMT.S.SIKKY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- JISHA JOSEPH, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.JOSEPH, CHERUMTHADATHIL HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR P.O., ETTUMANOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, (NOW WORKING AT ALHIJAS MEDICAL CLINIC,P PRINCE FAHAD STREET, JIDHAH, SAUDI ARABIA)REP. BY P/AT HOLDER AND MOTHER THRESIAMMA JOSEPH. THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ., - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(F.C) No.330 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Basant J., The petitioner husband is the respondent in a petition for divorce. That petition was filed in 2010, the same now stands posted to 11.11.2010 for evidence. 2. The petitioner has now come to this Court with this petition to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. What is his grievance? The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though parties were referred for counseling, according to the petitioner sufficient attempts have not been made to prompt a harmonious resolution of the disputes between the parties. The petitioner there fore prays that the parties may now be send to any counseling centre. 3. There is no complaint raised that the legal procedure prescribed under the Family Court Act to refer the parties for counseling has not been done. We do not in these circumstances find any merit in the grievance that the O.P.(F.C) No.330 of 2010 2 extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227, deserves to be invoked. 4. The petitioner raises a further grievance that Ext.P1 petition filed by the petitioner for referring the spouses to any counseling centre, has not been considered and no further orders have not passed. At least the request is entitled for a consideration of the learned Judge of the Family Court, it is prayed. 5. We do not want to express any opinion on the merits on the request in Ext.P1. The petitioner can certainly approach the Family Court immediately with a request that Ext.P1 may be disposed of, before the matter is taken up for trial on 11.11.2010. When the petitioner makes such a request, needless to say that the Family Court shall consider the said request and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P1. We do not intend to express any opinion on Ext.P1. We expect the Family Court to consider Ext.P1 and appropriate orders after being informed of the background of the disputes and sequence of events that have been taken place prior to the filing of Ext.P1, shall have to be passed. O.P.(F.C) No.330 of 2010 3 5. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed. 6. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned counsel for the petitioner. R. BASANT, JUDGE M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE dl/