ALPHONSA ROSE JOSEPH @ ALPHONSA JOSEPH Vs. ANAND JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent.

(2.) Petitioner is the wife of the respondent. Their marital relationship is running through a rough weather as they are fighting four litigations before the Family Court, Irinjalakkuda. This petition arises out of an order passed by the Family Court on I.A No.2895 of 2018 in O.P No.208 of 2018. Ext.P3 order is under challenge. The short order reads as follows :

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Family Court failed to provide an opportunity to the parties to have a counselling session in O.P No.719 of 2018 and the Family court is insisting the parties to go for trial of all the cases without completing the mandatory formalities. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the application by contending that on many occasions, mediations and counselling were done between the parties and there is no possibility of rapprochement. Apart from that, the petitioner's attempt is only to protract the proceedings. In answer to this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the respondent has filed O.P(Crl.) No.53 of 2019 challenging a direction passed by the Family Court to pay interim maintenance to the petitioner and O.P (Crl.) No.106 of 2019 is filed against an order passed by the Family court directing the respondent to produce certain documents. Learned counsel submitted that the direction was passed behind the back of the respondent. It cannot be disputed that if the documents are not produced as directed by the court for no lawful reason, the court can take adverse inference against the party for refusing to obey the orders. We do not find any reason for detaining this case on account of the pendency of the aforementioned cases.