SREEJTIH Vs. SRUTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Limited relief sought for in this original petition is to direct the Family Court, Irinjalakuda to consider and dispose of Ext.P7 interim application filed by the petitioner as I.A. No.1815/2018 in O.P. No.348/2016, at the earliest and till then to keep in abeyance the trial of O.P. No.348/2016 and connected cases.

(2.) Pursuant to the notice issued from this court, counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and 7. No separate notice was issued to respondents 4 and 5 as they are sailing together with the petitioner. Notice sent from this court to the 6th respondent remains unserved. But in view of the relief proposed we are not adjourning the matter for completing service to the 6 th respondent, especially taking note of the fact that the 6th respondent may not be affected by the relief proposed in this original petition.

(3.) Brief facts are that, there exists many litigation between the petitioner and the 1st respondent as an off- shoot of their matrimonial discord. Altogether there were six cases pending before the Family Court, Irinjalakuda. Four of which are filed by the 1st respondent and two by the petitioner herein. During pendency of those cases, the 1st respondent herein moved this court with O.P.(FC) No.18/2018, praying for an early disposal of three cases, i.e., (i) O.P. No.348/2016 filed by the first respondent seeking dissolution of the marriage, (ii) M.C. No.139/2016 filed by the first respondent seeking maintenance and (iii) G.O.P. No.473/2016 filed by the petitioner herein seeking custody of the minor child. This court, through judgment dated 23rd January, 2018, had allowed the original petition and the Family Court was directed to dispose of those three cases on or before 31.07.2018. But before starting of the trial of those 3 cases, the petitioner herein filed I.A. No.1815/2018 before the Family Court, seeking for a joint trial of the remaining three cases also. i.e., O.P. No.335/2017, O.P. No.482/2017 and 798/2017. In other words, the petitioner sought for a joint trial of the six cases together. But the Family Court is not considering I.A. No.1815/2018, stating the reason that there exists a direction issued from this court for a time bound disposal of the three cases in which evidence has to be started immediately, is the complaint.