LAWS(KER)-2015-11-214

VINITHA K V Vs. VIJAYANANDA PRABHU

Decided On November 04, 2015
VINITHA K V Appellant
V/S
VIJAYANANDA PRABHU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext.P5 order passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam through which I.A No.2961/2015 filed by the petitioner herein in O.P No.472/2011 was dismissed, is under challenge in this original petition which is instituted by invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested on this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioner herein had filed O.P No.472/2011 before the Family Court, Ernakulam against the respondent herein, seeking for restitution of conjugal rights. Evidently the parties are living separated due to matrimonial discord and various other litigations are also pending between them. The respondent entered appearance in the case and the Family Court had referred the matter for counselling. During pendency of the case before the counsellor, the petitioner filed Ext.P1 application as I.A No.1430/2012 seeking direction for directing the parties along with the mother of the respondent to undergo counselling before a qualified Psychologist/Psychiatrist and to obtain a report. The Family Court had allowed the above application on 20.04.2013 and referred the parties to undergo counselling before a Psychiatrist. Ext.P2 is the report submitted by the Clinical Psychologist to whom the parties are referred for undergoing psychological counselling. The psychological assessment report submitted in this regard is as follows:

(3.) Thereafter, trial commenced before the Family Court and the petitioner herein was examined as a witness. During her cross-examination, the Family Court permitted the counsel for the respondent to mark Ext.P2 report. According to the petitioner, then only the petitioner came to know about contents of Ext.P2 report. Since the petitioner felt that the report contains certain adverse remarks against her, she filed I.A No.1192/2015 seeking to summon the Psychiatrist who had issued Ext.P2 report, to give evidence before the court below. But the Family Court had dismissed I.A No.1192/2015 through an order dated 10.07.2015 observing that,