RAJENDRAN Vs. LATHIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two Original Petitions are filed by the petitioner husband, who is also the petitioner before the Family Court. The petitioner husband filed an application for divorce before the Family Court. The same was decreed ex parte on grounds of cruelty and desertion. After considerable delay, an application was filed by the respondent wife to set aside the ex parte order, which was allowed by Ext.P8. (We notice that the date of Ext.P8 is not clear, since on its title it shows 21.12.2019 and at the place where the Family Court Judge has signed the order, it is shown as 21.01.2020. The lower Courts and its ministerial staff are to be cautioned on such avoidable mistakes). O.P.(F.C).No.202/2020 is with respect to the said order.

(2.) The learned Family Court Judge has found that, notice on the respondent wife was returned unserved with the endorsement that the door was locked. However, there was no substituted service effected. There was a paper publication produced, but, in a newspaper/edition having circulation in Kozhikode only. In fact, the respondent wife's address as shown in the divorce petition itself was of Thiruvananthapuram. It is due to the above circumstances noticed by the learned Family Judge that the ex parte order was set aside. On the question of delay, it was specifically found that the respondent wife came to know of the ex parte order only on her approaching the Feroke Police Station on 22.02.2019 to see the children. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed at Ext.P8.

(3.) O.P.(F.C)No.458/2020 challenges the order rejecting the Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioner husband to amend the divorce petition, adding the ground of adultery in addition to cruelty and desertion. The learned Family Court Judge rejected the same refusing to exercise discretion, especially since the petitioner was found to have received Ext.A1 document, on which, reliance was placed to urge the ground of adultery; long before the evidence commenced. Today when the matter came up, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the divorce petition itself is likely to be closed today and both the Original Petitions would be rendered infructuous. We directed the Registrar (Subordinate Judiciary) to direct the Judge, Family Court, Malappuram, not to close the divorce petition today. We are informed by the Counsel appearing for the respondent wife that the matter has now been posted to 17.01.2021. We had also directed the copy of the B-diary, of the case to be produced, which has been furnished to us by 1.45 PM.