THRESIAMMA MANSHOVEN Vs. MANSHOVEN JACQUES JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come to this Court aggrieved by five orders, copies of which are produced as Exts.P9, P10, P11(b), P12 and P13.

(2.) A synoptic resume of the events which led to passing of these orders, according to us, would be crucially relevant. The parties to this Writ Petition are spouses. The petitioner/wife is an Indian national. The respondent/husband is a Belgian national. Their marriage had taken place 25 years ago. 2 sons, both aged above 21 years, are born in the wedlock. In 2004, a sale deed was executed by the wife in favour of the husband. We are not adverting to the rival contentions about the circumstances under which the said sale deed was executed. Shortly after the execution of the sale deed, O.P. No. 681 of 2007 was filed by the husband claiming divorce. Immediately there after the wife filed an application before the same Family Court as O.P. No. 934 of 2007. She apprehended that she may be evicted from the property in respect of which the 2004 sale deed was executed by her in favour of her husband. Both these O.Ps, i.e. O.P. No. 681& 934 of 2007, were ordered to be jointly tried in 2008. Evidence commenced. Commissioner was appointed to record evidence and time was taken to complete the recording of evidence. Recording of evidence was complete and the matter stood posted for arguments to 29.01.2010.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner was requested to explain the gist of the grievance, on the basis of which the petitioner/wife wants this Court to invoke its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 227. We have heard the learned Counsel in detail. The counsel submits that his grievance is that his prayer to try O.P. No. 126 of 2010 along with the earlier O.Ps.681 and 934 of 2007 has not been considered properly by the court below.