IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2011 / 17TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 36372 of 2009(R) --------------------------------------- [OP.NO.704/2009 OF FAMILY COURT,KOZHIKODE] .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- ARCHANA .J., AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. JANARDHANAN NAIR, SREEPADAM, KATTUKULANGARA, P.O.NELLIKODE, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.NIRMAL. S. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOZHIKODE, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, PAVAMANI ROAD, KOZHIKODE. 2. SUJITH .E., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.KUTTIKRISHNAN NAIR, EDAKKANDY HOUSE, P.O.KARUVASSERY, NEAR KUNDUPARAMBA JUNCTION, KOZHIKODE. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.K. BABU, R2 BY ADVS. SRI.R.SUDHISH, SMT.M.MANJU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.36372/2009-R: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE DIVORCE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS O.P. 704/09 FAMILY COURT, KOZHIKODE DTD. 12/08/09 AGAINST THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R1. DTD. 09/12/09. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------- WP(Civil) No.36372 of 2009 R ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th July, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J This writ petition is filed seeking two reliefs, which, in our view, are independent. 2. The second respondent who is the husband of the petitioner filed an application for divorce before the Family Court charging the wife with adultery with an unidentified paramour. He relies on a compact disc (C.D.) which he has produced as Document No.4 before the Family Court. According to him, it contains materials which would evidence the wife's alleged conduct. The wife, in turn, insists that she may be given a copy of that C.D. since she has to defend the allegations against her. The request for a copy of the material is well founded. The procedure for issuing copies of such C.D.s are not directly covered by any rule W.P.(CIVIL)36372 of 2009 2 in the Family Court Rules, Civil Rules of Practice, High Court Rules etc. as is reported by the Registrar General. But we are inclined to think that a copy has to be given by the person who has produced the material. We record the request of the learned counsel for the second respondent/husband that he may be permitted to take a copy of what is produced as Document No.4 under appropriate supervision of the Court as he apprehends that a copy, as such, may not now be available otherwise. Such copy could be authenticated by the Court and issued as a copy on being satisfied that it is the copy of what is already produced. We therefore direct the court below to follow this procedure and issue a copy of the C.D. to the writ petitioner who is the respondent in O.P.No.704 of 2009 pending before that Court. 3. In so far as the second relief is concerned, we are not inclined to issue any order in this case. In our view, that relief is fundamentally on an independent issue on the alleged contents of the compact disc. That is not a matter which could be clubbed up with the W.P.(CIVIL)36372 of 2009 3 reliefs sought for in connection with the matter as is pending before the Family Court, as of now. Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE css/