KIRAN SREEDHARAN Vs. SUSHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the husband of the respondent, their marriage having been solemnised on 31.08.2014 as per the custom prevailing in Hindu Thiyya community to which they belong. The petitioner is working abroad in Oman. When they were living together, the petitioner went to his place of work abroad and the respondent joined him in Oman on a visiting visa. According to the petitioner, since he did not have the minimum required salary for obtaining a spouse visa, visiting visa alone could be arranged. She had reached Oman on 07.05.2015 and returned on 07.12.2016; as she had overstayed in Oman, he had to pay a fine of 500 Oman Riyal to the authorities. From the very beginning itself the married life was not running smooth. For the present purpose, it is not necessary to detail the areas of differences between the spouses. Suffice it to say that now the spouses are living apart.

(2.) The respondent moved a M.C. seeking maintenance at Rs.20,000/- per month from the petitioner, before the Family Court, Kozhikode. She also filed a separate Original Petition seeking return of gold ornaments from the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner has moved a petition for divorce, which also is pending before the Family Court, Kozhikode. The MC and the OP filed by the respondent were clubbed together and evidence was taken. The respondent wife was examined as PW1 and documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A6. The petitioner has given evidence as RW1 and some other witnesses were also examined on his side. The respondent wife filed argument note also and thereafter the Power of Attorney holder of the petitioner moved application for re-opening evidence for the purpose of receiving additional documents. The learned Judge by the Ext.P6 order dated 06.11.2020 dismissed the application for re-opening the evidence. According to the petitioner, the said order is illegal and unsustainable since sufficient opportunity was not given to him to cross-examine the respondent wife with regard to the entries in the Ext.A5 passport and thus, through this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution the Ext.P6 order is sought to be set aside and a direction is sought to re-open the evidence enabling the husband to adduce further evidence.

(3.) I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.