Deepa C. v. Sadanandan P.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/27TH PHALGUNA, 1936 OP (FC).No. 106 of 2015 (R) ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A. NO. 206 OF 2015 IN OP 432/2013, OP 185/2013, MC 155 OF 2013 of FAMILY COURT, TIRUR DATED 4-3-2015 (OP 9HMA) 354/2013 AND OP (GW) 341/2013 OF THE FMAIKLY COURT, TIRUR) PETITIONERS:
--------------------------
1. DEEPA C. AGED 39 YEARS D/O.SREEDHARA PANICKER.
2. VAISADH NANDAN C MINOR, S/O.SADANANDAN.
3. MEDHA NANDAN D/O.SADANANDAN, DEEPA NIVAS, KANNAMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM TIRURANGADI TALUK. PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 REPRESENTED BY 1ST PETITIONER MOTHER BY ADV. SRI.FRANKLIN CHELLATH RESPONDENT:
---------------------------- SADANANDAN P.AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.ACHUTHAN NAIR, KANAKA VILAS, KOTUR INDIANUR P.O, KOTTAKKAL.
THIS OP (FAMILY COURT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 1803-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (FC).No. 106 of 2015 (R) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OF CHIEF EXAMINATION AND RE-EXAMINATION OF PW 1 IN OP (HMA) 354/2013 AND OP (GW) 341/2013 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT.
EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT.
EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE IA 306/15 FILED ON 28.1.15 BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT.
EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE FAMILY COURT, TIRUR. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL ks.
True copy P.S. (Hr.Gr.)To Judge
K.T. SANKARAN & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.
============================== O.P.(FC)No. 106 of 2015 ============================== Dated this the 18th day of March, 2015
JUDGMENT
K.T. Sankaran, J.
The application submitted by the petitioners to allow them to cross examine the respondent again was rejected by the court below as per Ext.P4 order dated 4.3.2015. In the affidavit accompanying the application, it is stated that certain questions were omitted to be put to the respondent while he was cross examined. The court below noticed that the respondent was elaborately cross examined by a senior counsel. The court below came to the conclusion that the application was filed as an attempt to delay the final disposal of the case. Reasons are also
OPFC 106/2015 stated to arrive that conclusion. We do not find any ground to interfere with the order dated 4.3.2015.
The O.P.(FC) is dismissed.
Sd/- K.T. SANKARAN JUDGE Sd/- BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE ks.
True copy P.S. (Hr.Gr.)To Judge
OPFC 106/2015